The nukes of hazard
French independent nuclear commission reports four malfunctions in four plants in 15 days 43
-
Posted 6:06 PM on 31 Jul 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
nedruod Posted 12:56 pm
31 Jul 2008
To throw a little bit of a strawman up, I'd be very surprised to find that less than 100 coal mine workers die per year. Kind of poor argument since I'm sure you're much more of an advocate of wind and solar. But I'd expect people do get injured raising and servicing wind turbines, handling solar thermal components, or in any industrial job.
Maybe 100 is 6 times normal, maybe it's half normal. I wasn't able to find out how many people the French energy industry employs, but the work related "major injury rate" for Great Britian's energy industry is about 166 per year per 100,000 employees.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:24 pm
31 Jul 2008
radiation doses were below the regulatory limits set by international standards.
Coal plants kill over 20,000 per year.
http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/Dirty_Kilowatts.pdf
Nuclear is our safest option for abundant baseload power.
http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/Dirty_Kilowatts.pdf
Recycling should not take place until it is economically attractive. We have enough uranium to use a once through system for hundreds of years. We are only talking about 5.4 ounces of fission products in 10-15 pounds of spent fuel per 80 year lifetime. We have centuries to develop a breeder reactor, but it could be done in a decade or two if we made a serious effort.
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 5:17 pm
31 Jul 2008
In a world where cities with millions of inhabitants choke on the deadly waste products from fossil fuel combustion, why should I be afraid of nuclear power just because people occasionally get contaminated with a bit of radioactive material?
In none of the four incidents that you mention did anyone receive a dose that will have any effect on their health.
Radiation is a natural part of our earthly environment. Humans have evolved in a radiation field with natural background exposures that vary from a few hundred millirem per year to a few thousand. In the high dose areas, the exposure is often a result of concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials like uranium, thorium, radon, and radium and drinking water that has been "contaminated" with that material forever. Detailed studies conducted over many years have not shown any negative health effects for the populations in those high dose areas. (See, for example http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/Data_Docs/index.html)
You also materially misstate the difference in cost between a once through cycle and a cycle where fuel is recycled. The 15-20% cost premium is just for the fuel portion of the costs, not the entire final cost. In the US, for example, the average production cost from a nuclear plant is about 1.76 cents per kilowatt hour.
Of that, about 0.46 cents represents the cost of the fuel in our once through cycle. If we were to recycle, studies have indicated that the fuel cost would increase by about 15-20% to a level of 0.55-0.6 cents per kilowatt hour. The rest of the costs would not be affected - you would not have to pay your operators more, pay your bankers more, or pay more for the parts and maintenance on the plant.
I cannot understand your assertion that moving from 20% of our electricity to 80% of our electricity would require the construction of 500-700 new plants. Let's both agree that we need to implement efficiency and conservation programs to keep the rate of electricity consumption growth low - no matter how we decide to produce the power to supply the demand that remains.
Under that construct, all we need is about 250 - 300 plants. The math is simple; we have 104 plants today that are producing about 800 terawatt hours of electricity each year. The total US consumption is about 4000 terawatt hours each year. The new plants that are being proposed are a bit larger than those that are currently operating, so they should be capable of producing about 10 terawatt hours per year each compared to the 8 per year in current plants.
4000 x 0.8 (80% of current demand) - 800 (already nuclear) = 2400 terawatts of new nuclear production needed.
At 10 terawatt-hours per plant that is 240 new plants. 300 new plants would allow for some reasonable growth in electricity.
There was a time in US history when we commissioned 15 new nuclear plants per year for two years in a row and that was when we still used slide rules and paper drawings and did not have a single CNC machine tool in the country.
Rod Adams
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Permalink
timbuktu Posted 7:34 pm
31 Jul 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:27 pm
31 Jul 2008
If you are sensible and interested in facts, you would report about how high that French radiation contamination level is, could that cause cancer, if so how does it compare with sitting in the same room as a person smoking..
But no ! For all that you care, facts are worthless if they get in your way of propaganda machine.
The world might be drilling more coal and churning out CO2 and all types of poisonous gases, but that doesn't bother you. You can always engage in lip service about global warming and feel good about yourself.
Gen IV nuclear reactors don't produce waste. They don't even produce Plutonium to scare the hell out of you. They use an abundant fuel which lasts for several tens of thousands of years.
But no, you don't care to listen.
All the nuclear bombs that have been built so far, have been done by research reactors. Making bombs via reprocessed Plutonium is the costliest and the least effective way of evading international watchdogs, so nobody has done it so far. Heck, nobody even does nuclear fuel reprocessing yet (except smart countries like France and Japan). The likelihood of a terrorist stealing Plutonium from a US reprocessing plant is so less we don't even have to talk about it. In the meanwhile, there are zillion ways left royally open for Tom, Dick and Harry to build nuclear bombs.
The price of Uranium is so cheap currently, that we are throwing away 95% of the fuel. The cost of Uranium is a miniscule portion in nuclear electricity as compared to plant construction costs. If the Uranium price rises only slightly, it becomes economical to construct breeder reactors and reprocessing units. When we have them up and running, we don't need no Yucca mountain.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:50 pm
31 Jul 2008
If you don't have access to energy, you are poor. If you have access, you are rich. This is what draws the borderlines between the rich and the poor countries in the world.
Either nuclear or solar have large capital construction costs. But once this construction is done, producing energy is extremely cheap. Once you have cheap energy, you will automatically become rich.
The question that needs to be asked is not "How much the new energy would cost in today's dollars". This question is very misleading, because today's dollars are largely defined in terms of crappy fuels such as coal and oil.
The right question to ask is "Do we have enough money to provide for the construction costs of new energy". The answer is yes.
Once the new plants are constructed (whether wind, or nuclear, or solar PV), more energy will be produced and people will have better access to energy.
Put against coal, all forms of energy look expensive (nuclear, wind, .. ). But if we care about environment, we should stop using coal.
The real problem with a complete renewable energy portfolio is that it is not sufficient to our huge population. Renewables are diverse and they require significant amount of land. It is land, and not money which is the bottleneck.
This is why we should use renewables to the maximum extent possible, and obtain the rest of the energy with nuclear. Relying completely on renewables will not be possible until we drastically reduce our population.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:35 am
01 Aug 2008
Renwables and conservation do not use signifigant land areas.
Nuclear does. The operation, mining, processing, transport, waste storage all put land at risk of long term contamination, groundwater and surface wayer too. The land used has to be restricted for centuries from human use.
Wind allows other activities, like farming or conservation wildlife areas to go forward unhindered in the same location.
Solar PV/heat cogeneration can be mounted of roofs and the southfacing sides of buildings and over existing land uses like parking lots. Solar furnaces over factories.
Wind/wave floating platforms can go offshore, out of sight of NIMBYs.
Farm and waste biogas actually reduces the land and ground and surface water use of farming, landfills, sewage plants, and manufacturing waste.
Ground source heat pumps (capable of eliminating the 36% of GHG produced in heating/cooling buildings) actually tap heat underground leaving the land unused.
And of course your other favorite energy source, biomass grown for solid and liquid fuel, devestates the land and soil.
Good consistency BTW, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:12 am
01 Aug 2008
What sets biomass apart from other solar technologies ? Least capital construction costs. This is why we can use it in moderation, for the medium term.
But sure, biomass has very low energy density, and we cannot rely on it completely.
As long as renewables don't use significant land mass, they are pretty and welcome. But they will look conspicuously large once we derive a large amount of power from them.
Biomass is looking ugly becomes it is already large. And it is the least efficient amongst its solar cousins. But the rest of the solar technologies will start to look ugly as they get larger.
Here is a list of the energy densities of solar technologies.
The best that we can come up with is solar PV which has 5 to 10 W/m^2. Wind has 2 W/m^2. In comparison, nuclear reactors have an energy density of 1GW/sq-km = 1000 W/m^2.
Mining for Uranium or Thorium takes significantly less area than coal. When we do reprocessing or construct breeder reactors, we don't obtain waste at all. This waste can be stored within the vicinity of the nuclear plant itself, and it will be radioactive for a mere 300 years. However without breeder technology, there would be enormous nuclear waste and it has to be monitored for 10,000 years.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:28 am
01 Aug 2008
Density? Since solar can go on already used land, namely roofs, building, and parking lots, density of the energy is not the important factor.
Wind does not interfere with other uses.
This old density argument is tired.
Mining, processing, waste storage and so forth spread the toxic generic mutation effects of nuclear all over.
Just like chemical ag for fuel farming GMO monocrops spreads biologically active hormone mimickiong toxins throughoyt ground and suface water.
You consistently support the most expensive, eco-devestating energy sources. And oppose the cost effective low eco-impact sources. My friend (to use a mccainism).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:31 am
01 Aug 2008
Both suck.
We've got the option to move to energy sources that have the problems of neither. No CO2 emissions, no rising fuel costs, no danger to those living in the waste stream, no decrease in fuel over time, ....
And we're rapidly reaching the point where construction costs for green sources are less than for either nuclear or coal.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:54 am
01 Aug 2008
Would you please come out of your cocoon and start reasoning like a responsible adult ?
How would mining for Uranium spread toxic mutation effects ? Did you see the incredible hulk movie recently or what !!?
Mining in all forms is disastrous for the environment. Not just mining for Uranium, any form of mining. You have to mine iron, nickel, copper, silicon and a myriad list of elements for your favorite solar technologies. Since solar power uses a LOT of these metals, you have to mine a LOT of them.
Rooftop solar panels and wind farms will provide only a fraction of our energy needs. If you can't do the math, please read Dr. Mackay's analysis.
@ Bob Wallace :
We are drilling more and more coal. The world's energy needs will only get bigger and bigger. Before criticizing nuclear plants, let's first get numbers of how many coal plants are getting shut down. Shall we ?
And we're rapidly reaching the point where construction costs for green sources are less than for either nuclear or coal.
In your dreams ! Accept the fact that coal will always be the cheapest mode of producing electricity. And it is abundant for another 200 years. Cutting back on coal takes a lot of will power and education of people, economics will not be your best friend there.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:00 am
01 Aug 2008
You don't really want to start defending nuclear power related contamination, do you?
Because the evidence is enormous and very easy to link to. Complete with extensive pictures.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:20 am
01 Aug 2008
When you want to quantify risk, you have to do it with numbers. For example, by how many people die per every giga-watt-year of electricity produced.
These numbers are extremely low for nuclear. Please do yourself a service and read Dr. Mackay's book.
The only serious nuclear contamination incident that ever happened was the Chernobyl disaster. Here is the blog of Alexandra Propokenko, one of its survivors. She actively supports nuclear power.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 2:21 am
01 Aug 2008
JR: I just love people who are so willing to dismiss irradiation of other people. If your family were "contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week" somehow I don't think you would be mollified to learn that China's pro-nuclear news service asserted "their health was unaffected." And I seriously Doubt you would be delighted to send them back to the same place to work day after day for years.
Low doses of radiation typically take a long time to have an impact -- and, of course, cumulative exposures have cumulative and even nonlinear impacts. I reported what was in the news. If that makes me hysterical, I guess that means the facts are hysterical world.
CB: If your family were "contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week" somehow I don't think you would be mollified to learn that China's pro-nuclear news service asserted "their health was unaffected." - Joe Romm
Joe, I will not repeat the words that passed through my mind when I read that comment. You have absolutely no idea what you are saying. My father was a nuclear chemist who did up close and personal research with some very nasty radioactive materials in the 1950's. He use to order Plutonium from Los Alamos by the Kilo, for his research. Although my father was careful, he did receive much higher doses of radiation than any of the Fench workers. My father also went on to become an expert on nuclear and radiation safety safety. Despite his radiation exposures, he is still very much alive and active at the age of 96.
Joe if you are so concerned about people being exposed to radiation how come you never mention radiation from coal? According to a story in Scientific American, cola "fly ash--a by-product from burning coal for power--contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste." http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Why do you never mention radiation from burning coal?
Another common energy related source of radiation is Radon in natural gas. My farther who studied the transport of radon by natural gas, concluded that radon is transported into consumer homes by natural gas, but at concentrations so low, that it posed no danger to residents. http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 01/ cj-barton-sr-at-ornl-radon-in-home.html Never-the-less, with your even the slightest does is dangerous approach, your failure to notice the danger of natural gas born radon in the home as a source or radiation danger seems strangely remiss.
Joe, Your low doses over time assertion has been repeatedly falsified by empirical studies. You should know that all of the morbidity and Epidemiological studies show that nuclear workers live significantly longer than members of the general population. People are exposed to high levels or radiation by living at high altitudes, living over granite or shale, or by flying, yet research has not identified any radiation related health problems with any of these groups.
[JR: I don't waste time mentioning radiation from burning coal because I'm trying to get us off of coal. My "low doses" assertion has not been repeatedly falsified by empirical studies. I am aware that nuclear workers have fewer health problems than the general population -- that is the so-called healthy worker effect, which I'm sure you are aware of because you seem familiar with the literature. Everyone else can google it. My uncle was a nuclear physicist at MIT and then my family started a Radon gas testing company, which they later sold. I am quite familiar with the literature -- and yes, everybody should get their home tested for radon.]
CB: Joe then it is inexcusable that you never mention radiation dangers from natural and other human sources, or or offer comparisons between them and radiation exposure from reactors. Joe you simply ignore evidence that low level radiation exposers from nuclear plants do not cause significant increases in radiation related illnesses like leukemia, or increases health problems in the neighborhood of American reactors. Your argument is simply an appeal to irrational fears, and by your own admission you should possess enough knowledge to understand the irrationality of those fears.
Charles Barton
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:48 am
01 Aug 2008
I prefer this. "I don't think many voters would want their families to drink strontium laced water. But make your argument and let them decide."
Remember the anecdotal horror repeated about agent orange in Vietnam? Supposedly a guy who really believed agent orange was harmless and wanted to prove it, dunked himself in a barrel of it. With predictable horror resulting.
Advocates for toxins will always claim they are aok with having their family's exposed to them 24/7.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:55 am
01 Aug 2008
So you want proof of uranium mining contamination?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Gustavion Posted 3:02 am
01 Aug 2008
Scientists are developing new ideas to make nuclear power more and more stable. I still think nuclear power will be a major player in the future.
Simplestop.net - Stop postal junk mail, Protect the environment, Protect your identity.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:06 am
01 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:56 am
01 Aug 2008
For you nuclear pushers...
It's not a nuclear vs. coal choice.
True. It is nuclear versus gas. Follow the money. Natural gas currently costs about $9 per mmBTU, or $5 million per tonne-uranium-equivalent; that includes royalties on the order of half a million dollars per tonne-uranium-equivalent.
To government, therefore, the price of a tonne of the real thing, $0.23 million, is unpleasantly low.
If government footdrags nuclear expansion because it doesn't want to lose fossil fuel income, shouldn't there be a market where this conflict of interest doesn't exist, and therefore government is happy to let nuclear power be built? What market might that be?
Hint: learn from the example of Greenpeace arctic researchers Lonnie Dupre and Eric Larsen. It will lead you to a busy business, so to speak, that is building new nuclear power plants in the USA right this moment.
Also, with regard to leaked natural uranium from the French plant, and the supposed similar leakage from American mines, the concerns being expressed here are fair and balanced concern, if you know what I mean. This is the same stuff as is in granite countertops, a recent nine days' fuss, and also is the same stuff, and very much less in amount, as what coal burners broadcast.
For more on that uranium dispersal, Google "CEGB released about 300 kg", with the quotation marks.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:58 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:09 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:12 am
01 Aug 2008
Even if we compromise a bit (and let them build a couple of experimental waste clean up reactors), I'm thinking most voters just don't want to risk new nukes (or old ones) anymore, or pay for it! Gasp! Astronomical cost. Waste storage for 10,000 years. genetic diseases multiplying, according to Helen Caldicott.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
edarnold41 Posted 6:34 am
01 Aug 2008
"Wind allows other activities, like farming or conservation wildlife areas to go forward unhindered in the same location." I'd refer him/her to the recent report on the Altamont wind-farms, where a measly 100 towers have been slaughtering a couple of thousand birds each year, and where attempts to decrease the wildlife loss over the last two years have apparently been futile. Now multiply by the tens of thousands of whirly-blades needed to acheive the wind-power Utopia, and you can pretty much kiss your feathered friends goodbye.
As far as the knee-jerk assertion that nuclear power means all your children will come out eight-pound hair-covered eyeballs ("Astronomical cost! Waste storage for 10,000 years! genetic diseases multiplying!"), might I gently remind the learned amazing that the largest source of radiation in our environment is the wind-borne flyash from burning coal, which is just laced with radioactive Thorium. Of course, you can spend bunches of money to remove the flyash and reuse it for something, as the TVA tried to do back in the 1970's: the stuff works very nicely as a component in cinder-block, and was so used for several years, until they found this unfortunate tendency for Geiger-counters to go nuts inside of buildings made from the stuff. Wait, I know, we can take the thousands of tons of flyash generated every year and bury it someplace... Yucca Mountain, perhaps? Or, we could pull our heads out of the fantasy-world orfice and admit that in a less than perfect world, nuclear power has worked, still works, will continue to work well into the future, and is the best bet until we come up with something better than bird-Cuisnarts, or destroying the American West by covering it with solar-panel farms linked with thousands of miles of roads and transmission towers (oh, you didn't notice those in the artist's conception drawings?)
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:43 am
01 Aug 2008
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/07/25/china_wind/index.htm ...
No free lunch? Free wind, wave, and solar power though. It just takes a minimal investment to collect it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 7:24 am
01 Aug 2008
They like gas. That's the Earth-spirit that they like.
What they like about windpower is its smallness in a graph like this.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
President Lindsay Posted 3:39 pm
01 Aug 2008
We already did it by 1994, but Congress killed it and the DOE ordered the scientists who worked on it for ten year to NOT publicize it. The commercial version of that one developed at Argonne National Laboratory is called the S-PRISM, and we could start building them any time. The old saws about waste and proliferation and safety and poor economics are all meaningless once we convert to that system.
As for the French accidents, it was so minor as to be rated a zero on the international scale of nuclear accidents that runs from zero to seven. And the accident that released some natural unenriched uranium into the river in an already-diluted state amounted to only twice the amount that is produced in the ash of a normal coal-fired power plant every day! This is fear-mongering by those who know and baseless fear by those who don't.
Permalink
President Lindsay Posted 3:57 pm
01 Aug 2008
Where do you get your nuke cost numbers? Westinghouse is building passive safety reactors in China right now that are projected to cost about $1,000/kW. Compare that to the two big wind power projects everybody's talking about now, the North Sea Meerwind project (perhaps aptly named) and of course Pickens' windypalooza. From Pickens and Meerwind's own stated costs, multiplied by the capacity factor (in other words, how much they can actually be expected to produce in the real world, and at this giving them the benefit of the doubt), they're going to cost in the range of $15,000/kW.
As for solar, a friend of mine sent me an article about Spain's tower of power, that amphitheater-type array of mirrors that track the sun and focus it on the top of a tower where it produces heat and turns a turbine. They're going to build several of them, to be completed by 2013. Again, when you figure in a generous capacity factor (assuming it never gets cloudy there) it's easy to figure out how much non-peak (wrong time of day, alas) power they can produce. It makes the wind farm costs look cheap, since it'll run in the neighborhood of $30,000/kW.
Joe, why do you keep up this antinuclear demagogue act? You can do better than this. I'm happy to see from the comments that more and more people are seeing through your act. But really, it's getting kind of tired by now. Cherry-picking and exaggeration can only get you so far.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:59 pm
01 Aug 2008
Solar, wind, and biogas will grow exponentially with mass production. So will smart grid technology, plugin hybrids, and ground source heat pumps. Pumped out of factories at an ever increasing, ever more inexpensive per unit, pace.
No, the nuclear power industry dawddled too long, substituting corruption and bottomline results for actual results and integrity. The widespread contamination, coverup, and health risk is difficult to overcome in the public mindset.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
President Lindsay Posted 4:54 pm
01 Aug 2008
Yes. They're modular, so they would be built in factories and dropped into the excavation. You could hook as many up as you want at each location, all with a central control room. We already know they work, there are over 300 reactor-years of experience with breeders.
The widespread contamination, coverup, and health risk is difficult to overcome in the public mindset.
It's precisely because of the sort of baseless scare-mongering like you continually put out here that it's difficult to overcome the public's fears. Widespread contamination? Where? Health risk? Where? Aside from Chernobyl, which hardly applies to anything that would be built in the future, there's been no widespread contamination nor health risks. You quote Helen Caldicott as a reliable source? My gawd, man, she's the doyenne of antinuclear hysteria. The woman is certifiable when it comes to her pathological freakout over anything with the word "nuclear" in it.
Don't tell me how cheap solar and wind will be. Look at the costs right now (see my earlier post). On a level playing field, PRISM reactors would win out over solar and wind hands down, in both cost and reliability.
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 8:43 pm
01 Aug 2008
In a comment where Charles was quoting Joseph, there is this tidbit of information about Joseph:
"My uncle was a nuclear physicist at MIT and then my family started a Radon gas testing company, which they later sold. I am quite familiar with the literature -- and yes, everybody should get their home tested for radon."
In general, Radon gas testing companies operate about like asbestos removal companies - they provide a service that can be useful, but when they have difficulty getting enough paying customers to care, they resort to scare tactics in their marketing material.
As the companies attempt to grow, their marketing material becomes less and less factual and more and more scary about the unseen dangers of evil Radon lurking undetected. Why without their services, that 100 year old farm house that your family has been inhabiting for generators might be what is killing them. After all, some of your family members might have died of OMG - cancer. Everyone should be paying Radon testing companies - like the one that Joe's family owned - to get their homes tested, preferably as often as possible. Otherwise they are just letting their families get exposed and risk the big C. Heck, maybe it should be mandatory for all homes to be tested. We cannot have uninformed people making choices about their family health. Besides, if they do not want to pay to get their homes tested, what will the Radon testing companies do with all of their fancy equipment and employees? (Please read the dripping sarcasm there.)
If you do not believe this is how radon testing companies operate try Googling "radon testing" and reading some of the links.
I know we should not joke about cancer, it is a horrible way to die. Like most people who have been around a while (I am nearly 50) I could produce a list of close relatives and friends who have died from the disease. It is a much longer list than I would like. Some of the people were quite young and all of them had painful and tragic deaths.
However, I also realize that cancer affects about 30% of the humans who inhabit this planet. It tends to be more prevalent in rich countries with long life expectancies - many very poor people simply do not live long enough to die from cancer.
According to very detailed and extensive studies, including the seminal work by Dr. Bernard Cohen, radon concentration in homes is not closely related to cancer rates unless cigarette smoking is also involved.
Sure, there is plenty of literature about radiation out there that can scare you, but "literature" is a very good word to use for some of the material. Much of it is economically motivated fiction even when it comes from supposedly unbiased sources like the bureaucrats who have been defending their radiation protection jobs for decades.
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 8:58 pm
01 Aug 2008
"This happens every time an anti-nuke piece comes out. It probably doesn't hurt to figure out counterarguments, but they can get rather technical, and most of us aren't very technical. I just went on a radio show with Harvey Wasserman, he's one of the best sources for anti-nuke arguments. "
Sorry, Jon, but some of us believe strongly that energy supply choices have to be made with detailed technical understanding of the various alternatives. We actually believe it is important to understand that you could cover every inch of what is now New York City with the most efficient solar cells on the market, and you would still not provide 20% of the city's current power needs. (Unlike amazingdrx who likes to state that solar does not take up any room.)
We also like to look at statistics that show that even in that wonderful haven of renewable bliss - Germany - there are plans to construct 25 additional coal fired power plants; unless, of course, Angela Merkel successfully manages to build a coalition strong enough to overturn the silly decision to begin shutting down very safe and well operated nuclear plants.
Here is an emotional argument for you from a pro-nuke. I am a father of two, hoping to be a grandfather someday. I have spent the last 30 years learning the technical details of an amazing technology that has proven to be safe, clean, reliable and low cost compared to all other alternatives. I get ANGRY when idiots who do not want to do math, never bothered to finish school (Amory Lovins) and want to keep the coal, oil and gas bandwagon going for a few more years keep repeating stupid statements.
I also get really angry when people imply that I am some kind of tool for a faceless industry. I freely admit that I expect to profit from a vibrant and growing nuclear industry, but my current and past income has been as a professional officer in the US Navy. I spend time in discussions like this and in sharing as much of my nuclear knowledge as I can in hopes of raising awareness and interest in a very important - but somewhat technical subject.
Clean enough to run inside a sealed submarine. Green enough for me.
Permalink
scatter Posted 10:09 pm
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:57 pm
01 Aug 2008
But of course they would have to be tested first. 10 years for construction and testing would be quick in the nuclear industry.
It would have to be proven that they could beat the 8 to 10 dollar per watt cost estimate, from nuclear industry analysts, that has banks afraid to fund anymore plants.
Meanwhile over the 10 year testing period, renewables and conservation would proceed. Only then could a comparison be made.
"It's precisely because of the sort of baseless scare-mongering like you continually put out here that it's difficult to overcome the public's fears."
Then again it maybe because of actual incidents of accidents and contamination, that public fear. Those are too numerous to mention, but not too numerous to link to. Is that what you want?
I have linked to just one, that details the devestation of yellow cake contamination related to uranium mining. Care to read about plutonium in ground water and rivers? A decommisioned reactor core in an unlined landfill, leaking into a river? There's more, a lot more.
Maybe it's all made up, is that your contention? If so you need to do a lot of rehabilitation of the image of nuclear power.
My suggestion is that a few test reactors might do that. Or is that too anti-nuclear for you? Too hysterical? remember what your hero Reagan said, "Trust but verify." I think the public will need some verification of your claims.
Thus the test. Do you really expect people to back nuclear power as a solution without proof? That is unrealistic. The very ones the industry turns to for funding, financial analysts, are some of the biggest skeptics on cost right now.
And who would dare issue an insurance policy for any new nucklear plant technology? Unless/until the nuclear industry insures itself, how is it operating on any kind of level playing field? Right now congress just gives the industry a loophole on insurance.
Not to mention evacuation plans, security from terrorism or natural disaster, waste storage and disposdal, decomminsioning costs, and so forth. All this is glossed over. Do enmergency crews and hospitals in areas in danger from a nuclear accident even have radiation suits and equipment?
Nope. people even have to obtain their own Iodine pills? The industry has been operating by bribing corrupt politicians for far too long to be given the benefit of the doubt.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:05 am
02 Aug 2008
According to Caldicott the radiation that is leaking into the environment due to the nuclear industry is concenrated in human fat, right near the genetic material that is passed on to future generations. And genetic diseases are increasing rapidly.
Is that risk worth it? A technology that is more expensive than renewables and conservation?
I doubt that voters would think so given the facts.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:09 am
02 Aug 2008
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
How solar plants can work all winter
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:29 am
02 Aug 2008
... John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Northern Wisconsin, eh? Wasn't there an unsolved murder in Northern Wisconsin a few years back?
(Congratulations on growing a -- I assume -- real name.)
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
How solar plants can work all winter
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 11:34 pm
02 Aug 2008
On Friday, August 1, 2008, I spoke to two of the founders of NuScale Power, a venture-funded start-up company that is commercializing a 45 MWe natural circulation light water reactor developed initially as a research project at Oregon State University. The funding source is CMEA Ventures.
NuScale is following the path that has been established by many important technology startups - do the initial research and development in a university environment where there are plenty of active minds with great ideas. When a proper foundation has laid and lots of good, hard discussion has taken place, move towards a real product that can be put into the marketplace to solve real world problems.
Paul Lorenzini and Jose Reyes are serious, dedicated people with a real opportunity to change the world. You can hear our conversation at The Atomic Show #100 - Nuclear Power on a New Scale - NuScale Power.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:09 am
03 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:40 am
03 Aug 2008
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 8:26 am
03 Aug 2008
Sure, "no one" knows me. Check my background and my volunteer activities and you can verify that I do support efforts to minimize human impact on the environment.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:28 am
03 Aug 2008
I wouldn't really call a 20 year professional greenwashing lobbyist an "environmentalist".
http://www.endgame.org/moore.pdf
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html
Not to mention the fact that he's officially on the payroll of the official lobbying group of the Nuclear power industry, might lead one take his rhetoric with a small mountain of salt.
http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/AbouttheCoalition/CoChairs ...
http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/F6.cfm
Along with another fellow greenwashing lobbyist Christine Todd Whitman.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0203-02.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Whitman_Strate ...
That'd be like calling the current head of the EPA an environmentalist.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/25/115623/310
-David Ahlport
Permalink
solar greg Posted 5:11 am
06 Aug 2008
Anybody who says solar (DHW solar, ground storage solar for space heating, and eventually PV or thermal to electric) is no good, is either ignorant or afraid of it. We have around 4KWH per M per day to work with in most places and ways of storing for a good amount of energy needs, mainly heat.
If private enterprise doesn't want to build nukes it is for 2 reasons. Cost and risk.
The only way nukes could happen now is if somebody reaches into our pockets and decides for us.
Permalink