I'd be very wary of pinning all my energy hopes on future technology (that XKCD stip [xkcd.com] makes the point quite well). Nuclear is the best option we have to satisfy our current energy requirements.
Except that nuclear as it is done today, i.e., basically the once-through uranium technology, is not an acceptable long-term power generation technology, even hard-core nuclear apologists will admit that. In fact it's arguably not an acceptable civil energy generation tech at all, as Fukushima has demonstrated. So to really be sustainable we need to develop either
- breeder reactors
- thorium reactors
- fusion reactors
none of which currently exists in any commercially viable way, so the argument you put forth really does apply to NP before anything else, as common sense would have it - NP is obviously technologically more challenging that anything renewable.
As for the reason that the Nuclear advocates don't mention alternative energy, why should they? What's the point of arguing against something that doesn't exist?
Still they mention the technologies above all the time as if they were here anytime soon. So the real reason seems simply to be that they're totally blinded by the faith in their pet technology and not nearly as much interested in devising realistic solutions to humanity's energy need as in pushing their personal agendas forward .
Actually we COULD be building the nice small thorium reactors if it weren't for the NIMBYs (Hi NIMBY!) that force us to use 30+ year old designs
You are seriously deluded if you think we don't have thorium reactors now because of NIMBYs. Also since you're not one of those NIMBYs you so courageously mock from the comfort of you armchair, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go buy
some land property near Fukushima? I bet you could get a very good deal there.
The simple fact is if it weren't for massive subsidies the "green" tech would frankly be so damned expensive nobody would be messing with it.
This "simple fact" is so much more applicable to nuclear energy that it isn't funny anymore. Looks to me that you like many nuclear apologists on this site are loud and very full of yourself but really not much more than full-of-shit fanatics. Quit the dick contest you're stuck in and try to come with proper answers to the very real concerns raised by nuclear energy, you'll look much less like an idiot that way.
Short, simple answer: this page is a big pile of bullshit. The fact that it gets cited by each and every nuclear apologist on slashdot only goes to show how blind and desperately deluded these self-proclaimed paragon of rationalism truly are.
Don't forget to deduce all the tax cuts and helps wind power gets to see how cheap it really is.
Yeah because nuclear energy never benefited from public subventions.
As for Fukushima, Chernobyl and similar, count the deaths they caused.
Try to be a bit realistic for a while and assess the potential disaster that an accident like Fukushima went inches from. Nuclear apologists on slashdot are quick at scoffing anti-nuclear as irrational but to me from what I read here they look even more blind and fanatic.
I have to quote each time this topic pops up those two idiots on slashdot on March 16. 2011:
AnonGCB (1398517) says:
It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE!
An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in... wait for it... containment chambers!
Containment chambers indeed!
On which kannibal_klown (531544) answers:
Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla
Holly shit who is living in an alternative universe? How can an industrial process be "one of the safest" when it has the potential to destroy a country and almost did? How blind are you willing to be?
Your "facts" are utter bullshit, and you're an idiot for putting them forth. This well-known page, that comes back each time an idiot feels like defending NP, says that the WHO announced 4000 deaths from Chernobyl in 2005 but fails to indicate that the same WHO admitted later that the report was "a political communication tool" and issued a new statement in 2006 pointing at very different figures.
Also comparing rooftop fall deaths to nuclear is ridiculous because you're comparing very shoddy construction practices to the extreme requirements of nuclear, but nothing prevents people from using proper equipments and practices when going on roofs. Also it ignores solar thermal energy which is probably the cleanest and safest way of generating electricity bar none.
Ultimately the issue here is that you need to consider the intrinsic risks, which are high with nuclear, not the mitigated risks, which indeed have been reduced but mostly by pure luck.
Anyway believe what you want but don't blind yourself with partisan bullshit when trying to form an opinion.
Solar (or geothermal and definitely not wind) isn't even a viable option yet.
Not less than breeder and thorium reactors that people need to push forward as soon as proposing NP as an acceptable solution, because in its current form it is not.
Every year dozens of people die in the installation and maintenance of solar panels and wind generators
That argument comes back all the time but it sounds completely ridiculous to me. How is handling solar panels or wind turbines more dangerous than working on a nuclear power plant construction site, or any power plant for that matter? Just enforce similar security measures for workers and you'll get similar fatality rates.
Meanwhile nuclear has caused zero deaths in its history in this country - but somehow nuclear is unsafe and we need to devoting more resources to solar?
Fukushima went inches away from collapsing Japan as a country it seems. Would the wind have blown in the wrong direction (i.e.,inland) during those fateful few days, Tokyo might have had to be evacuated for decades possibly. That's where nuclear energy is unsafe, markedly more than any other form of energy generation.
Now you may say that newer designs, or more probably future designs do mitigate the risks, but unless you can come up with a design that cannot possibly lead to any widespread contamination, even in the face of human stupidity, corruption and greed, all of which we are not going to get rid of anytime soon, then you're disingenuous IMHO if you deny the inherent risk with nuclear energy.
Risk by the way that the people who make a living from estimating risks, i.e., insurers, have properly assessed, and thus simply refuse to bear.
Not sure about the exact number but from my understanding there are currently exactly one such reactor producing electricity for commercial use throughout the world.
From this article optimistically named "It's time to give up on breeder reactors" from the International Panel on Fissile Materials:
After more than 60 years and $100 billion in research and development spending, the vision of plutonium-fueled fast breeders remains as far from reality as ever.
Doesn't exactly look to me like the magic silver bullet people refer them to as.
How do you define safer? Oh I see, you mean "disregarding a few annoying incidents that won't ever happen again, promised. In fact they almost didn't happen at all".
nuclear is cheaper
Especially when you disregard the potential cost of accidents (i.e., insurance).
Indeed these technical challenges, together with energy storage, are infinitely too complex to tackle, and in fact not even worse considering (plus the sun doesn't shine at night). Let's bet our future on breeder and fusion reactors instead, those are right round the corner. One or two final adjustments and you'll get them at WallMart at discount prices.
However those are mostly research projects, and from the page you link to
there are very few breeder reactors actually used for power generation.
In fact they have been advertised from the beginning as the obvious solution to the nuclear power waste issue, but it has appeared that they are very difficult to build on a commercial scale, so the parent was correct in saying that nobody has figured out an actually-safe and commercially viable way of reprocessing spent fuel yet.
Well yes of course, in fact if they could just build a fusion reactor they would indeed solve the problem for good. However there's a little issue here -> "if".
Why of course, TEPCO was so eager to scrape off their existing plants and replace them with brand new ones, only the evil regulators prevented them to!
Man, living in your fantasy world must be so comfortable!
And this is generally how you can solve this problem
It's not even that simple because businesses might as well leave the dirty work to existing criminal organizations which are obviously not going to be deterred by jail penalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Desertec is meant to provide electricity to Europe, including France.
I'd be very wary of pinning all my energy hopes on future technology (that XKCD stip [xkcd.com] makes the point quite well). Nuclear is the best option we have to satisfy our current energy requirements.
Except that nuclear as it is done today, i.e., basically the once-through uranium technology, is not an acceptable long-term power generation technology, even hard-core nuclear apologists will admit that. In fact it's arguably not an acceptable civil energy generation tech at all, as Fukushima has demonstrated. So to really be sustainable we need to develop either
none of which currently exists in any commercially viable way, so the argument you put forth really does apply to NP before anything else, as common sense would have it - NP is obviously technologically more challenging that anything renewable.
As for the reason that the Nuclear advocates don't mention alternative energy, why should they? What's the point of arguing against something that doesn't exist?
Still they mention the technologies above all the time as if they were here anytime soon. So the real reason seems simply to be that they're totally blinded by the faith in their pet technology and not nearly as much interested in devising realistic solutions to humanity's energy need as in pushing their personal agendas forward .
Actually we COULD be building the nice small thorium reactors if it weren't for the NIMBYs (Hi NIMBY!) that force us to use 30+ year old designs
You are seriously deluded if you think we don't have thorium reactors now because of NIMBYs. Also since you're not one of those NIMBYs you so courageously mock from the comfort of you armchair, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go buy some land property near Fukushima? I bet you could get a very good deal there.
The simple fact is if it weren't for massive subsidies the "green" tech would frankly be so damned expensive nobody would be messing with it.
This "simple fact" is so much more applicable to nuclear energy that it isn't funny anymore. Looks to me that you like many nuclear apologists on this site are loud and very full of yourself but really not much more than full-of-shit fanatics. Quit the dick contest you're stuck in and try to come with proper answers to the very real concerns raised by nuclear energy, you'll look much less like an idiot that way.
What about this one
Short, simple answer: this page is a big pile of bullshit. The fact that it gets cited by each and every nuclear apologist on slashdot only goes to show how blind and desperately deluded these self-proclaimed paragon of rationalism truly are.
Don't forget to deduce all the tax cuts and helps wind power gets to see how cheap it really is.
Yeah because nuclear energy never benefited from public subventions.
As for Fukushima, Chernobyl and similar, count the deaths they caused.
Try to be a bit realistic for a while and assess the potential disaster that an accident like Fukushima went inches from. Nuclear apologists on slashdot are quick at scoffing anti-nuclear as irrational but to me from what I read here they look even more blind and fanatic.
I have to quote each time this topic pops up those two idiots on slashdot on March 16. 2011:
AnonGCB (1398517) says:
It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE! An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in ... wait for it... containment chambers!
Containment chambers indeed! On which kannibal_klown (531544) answers:
Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla
Beavis and Butthead anyone?
nuclear is one of the safest.
You must live in an alternative universe
Holly shit who is living in an alternative universe? How can an industrial process be "one of the safest" when it has the potential to destroy a country and almost did? How blind are you willing to be?
You may want to check out, well, the facts.
Your "facts" are utter bullshit, and you're an idiot for putting them forth. This well-known page, that comes back each time an idiot feels like defending NP, says that the WHO announced 4000 deaths from Chernobyl in 2005 but fails to indicate that the same WHO admitted later that the report was "a political communication tool" and issued a new statement in 2006 pointing at very different figures.
Also comparing rooftop fall deaths to nuclear is ridiculous because you're comparing very shoddy construction practices to the extreme requirements of nuclear, but nothing prevents people from using proper equipments and practices when going on roofs. Also it ignores solar thermal energy which is probably the cleanest and safest way of generating electricity bar none.
Ultimately the issue here is that you need to consider the intrinsic risks, which are high with nuclear, not the mitigated risks, which indeed have been reduced but mostly by pure luck.
Anyway believe what you want but don't blind yourself with partisan bullshit when trying to form an opinion.
Solar (or geothermal and definitely not wind) isn't even a viable option yet.
Not less than breeder and thorium reactors that people need to push forward as soon as proposing NP as an acceptable solution, because in its current form it is not.
They're not white enough.
Every year dozens of people die in the installation and maintenance of solar panels and wind generators
That argument comes back all the time but it sounds completely ridiculous to me. How is handling solar panels or wind turbines more dangerous than working on a nuclear power plant construction site, or any power plant for that matter? Just enforce similar security measures for workers and you'll get similar fatality rates.
Meanwhile nuclear has caused zero deaths in its history in this country - but somehow nuclear is unsafe and we need to devoting more resources to solar?
Fukushima went inches away from collapsing Japan as a country it seems. Would the wind have blown in the wrong direction (i.e.,inland) during those fateful few days, Tokyo might have had to be evacuated for decades possibly. That's where nuclear energy is unsafe, markedly more than any other form of energy generation.
Now you may say that newer designs, or more probably future designs do mitigate the risks, but unless you can come up with a design that cannot possibly lead to any widespread contamination, even in the face of human stupidity, corruption and greed, all of which we are not going to get rid of anytime soon, then you're disingenuous IMHO if you deny the inherent risk with nuclear energy.
Risk by the way that the people who make a living from estimating risks, i.e., insurers, have properly assessed, and thus simply refuse to bear.
Breeder reactors are in other countries
Not sure about the exact number but from my understanding there are currently exactly one such reactor producing electricity for commercial use throughout the world.
From this article optimistically named "It's time to give up on breeder reactors" from the International Panel on Fissile Materials:
After more than 60 years and $100 billion in research and development spending, the vision of plutonium-fueled fast breeders remains as far from reality as ever.
Doesn't exactly look to me like the magic silver bullet people refer them to as.
nuclear is safer
How do you define safer? Oh I see, you mean "disregarding a few annoying incidents that won't ever happen again, promised. In fact they almost didn't happen at all".
nuclear is cheaper
Especially when you disregard the potential cost of accidents (i.e., insurance).
By pretty much any metric
At least by unicorns and fairies, definitely.
Indeed these technical challenges, together with energy storage, are infinitely too complex to tackle, and in fact not even worse considering (plus the sun doesn't shine at night). Let's bet our future on breeder and fusion reactors instead, those are right round the corner. One or two final adjustments and you'll get them at WallMart at discount prices.
But what about your friendly plumber falling off of your roof? Won't anybody think of Mario?
These numbers aren't a big change from estimates 5 months ago.
Which estimates? I started with "a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes", then it became 7% of Chernobyl, some times later 20% of Chernobyl, now it's 40% it seems, is this the final figure? Do you promise?
We can get the rest of the energy and as a side effect transform the stuff into short lived isotopes.
Exactly why haven't we thought about that before, let's just pull some commercial breeder reactors out of our asses and be all set!
because of regulations, politics, fear mongering, FUD, and idiocy.
And obviously costs and search for profits are not to be considered here. Only "idiots" would do that.
there are very few breeder reactors actually used for power generation.
In fact they have been advertised from the beginning as the obvious solution to the nuclear power waste issue, but it has appeared that they are very difficult to build on a commercial scale, so the parent was correct in saying that nobody has figured out an actually-safe and commercially viable way of reprocessing spent fuel yet.
Well yes of course, in fact if they could just build a fusion reactor they would indeed solve the problem for good. However there's a little issue here -> "if".
If the government would have approved new plants
Why of course, TEPCO was so eager to scrape off their existing plants and replace them with brand new ones, only the evil regulators prevented them to!
Man, living in your fantasy world must be so comfortable!
And this is generally how you can solve this problem
It's not even that simple because businesses might as well leave the dirty work to existing criminal organizations which are obviously not going to be deterred by jail penalties.
Question is, how do we change this?
I understand this was basically the goals of all communist revolutionaries, although the plans did not actually unfold as well as expected.
Fukushima was not management incompetence, it was downright criminal negligence as far as I can tell.
We'd also need to remove the free ride from insurance that nuclear energy currently benefits from, at which points it becomes totally unviable.
reuse it in a breeder reactor
Why yes, they would simply have gone to their friendly neighbor breeder reactor, run by leprechauns on unicorn powder!