Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Only one word need be used to answer you: Fukushima.

If you want to argue against similar facilities in the US, I'll agree. Ones located on inland lakes or non-flooding rivers are different animals.

I can postulate all sorts of trouble if I can add a major natural disaster to the mix. Why not talk about geothemal and the Yellowstone caldera. Fukashima is minor in comparison to a Yellowstone eruption.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If you want to argue against similar facilities in the US, I'll agree. Ones located on inland lakes or non-flooding rivers are different animals.

I can postulate all sorts of trouble if I can add a major natural disaster to the mix. Why not talk about geothemal and the Yellowstone caldera. Fukashima is minor in comparison to a Yellowstone eruption.

That has little to do with energy, unless you are saying use of geothermal there could trigger an eruption. But it's true that it is a huge natural danger, and trying to do something about it could itself trigger it. Fukushima is a real and spreading danger, contaminating ocean life to an unknown degree, and also all the land around it, virtually forever. Locating a plant inland does not avoid that danger.

We don't need dangerous energy. Let's go green right away.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Fukushima is a real and spreading danger, contaminating ocean life to an unknown degree, and also all the land around it, virtually forever. Locating a plant inland does not avoid that danger.

Locating a plant inland doesn't avoid the danger of contaminating ocean life? Do you get what "inland" means?

That's a pretty spurious argument for a number of reasons:

• It was probably not a good idea to build reactors in an area that was prone to natural disasters of the scale the Fukishima was exposed to. Most locations would be extremely unlikely to see this type of problem.
• The designers of the reactors had informed the Fukishima team that there was a design flaw in the cooling mechanism of these older plants: and had recommended an upgrade to the revised design, which corrected the flaw. The Japanese ignored this warning. The flaw? The cooling system was powered by externally-supplied power. So, if anything happened to the local power grid, the cooling water would no longer circulate... and would end up just boiling off. This is exactly why the reactors at Fukushima overheated. The revised design uses the actual heat of the reactor to force the water to circulate. So, it could never run out of power in an emergency situation. In other words, the design flaw that caused this incident no longer exists in newly-built reactors of the same base design.
• Despite the fact that this was a somewhat large problem, the damage to the local community and to the local environment was far less than the doomsayers at the time were claiming. There is real damage, but it is of a much smaller scale than previously imagined and life is returning to normal relatively quickly.

Just because a nuclear plant is located inland, doesn't mean that it's safe. There's solid evidence that communities living in the proximity of nuclear plants have a higher incidence of cancer and other maladies. How many want one built anywhere near their home? Plus, violent weather and other factors, like earthquakes, could play a large part in adding to the extreme dangers. Not to mention the whole question of what to continuing doing with the nuclear waste.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Just because a nuclear plant is located inland, doesn't mean that it's safe. There's solid evidence that communities living in the proximity of nuclear plants have a higher incidence of cancer and other maladies. How many want one built anywhere near their home? Plus, violent weather and other factors, like earthquakes, could play a large part in adding to the extreme dangers. Not to mention the whole question of what to continuing doing with the nuclear waste.

Actually, there isn't, but feel free to post a reference to the contrary. Even TMI, which was studied to death, showed no increases.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree, but the baseload issue is still there. No intermittant source can provide that. None.

Solar alone is a problem. Some form of energy storage would also be required. There is no reason that energy storage cannot be developed with commitment of resources over time.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, there isn't, but feel free to post a reference to he contrary. Even TMI, which was studied to deah, showed no increases.

I already posted a reference to the contrary back at #3601 of this thread.

Repost:

In a nut shell, the following quote is from Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project


In addition to meltdowns, there is the matter of routine emissions from reactors and elevated cancer rates near reactors, demonstrated in many studies. Finally, the U. S. and other nations still have no long-term plans to store the massive amounts of hazardous nuclear waste.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Just because a nuclear plant is located inland, doesn't mean that it's safe. There's solid evidence that communities living in the proximity of nuclear plants have a higher incidence of cancer and other maladies. How many want one built anywhere near their home? Plus, violent weather and other factors, like earthquakes, could play a large part in adding to the extreme dangers. Not to mention the whole question of what to continuing doing with the nuclear waste.

Uh. no. Just, no. No serious study of cancer rates in relation to proximity to power plants has ever shown any correlation. There's a reason for that. If you actually know the science.... the idea that one causes the other is simply ludicrous.

First of all, proximity doesn't make all that much difference to the radiation distribution. This is because all the ways radiation tends to emerge from power plants (whether it be the normal discharge or an accident in transportation of fissionable materials, etc) tend to quickly disperse the radiation away form the reactor. The radiation produced is distributed randomly.... often far away from the plant itself. For non-emergency situations, you are likely to receive the same amount of radiation on average from a reactor thousands of miles away as you do from one next door.

Typically, the additional exposure to radiation due to nuclear power is only about about a 0.2% percent increase over the natural background radiation of the planet. It is extremely unlikely that an increase of just one five hundredth above what we humans are surrounded by every day is going to cause a significant problem.

Moreover radiation is thought to be the cause of only about 1% of cancers to start with. So, the theoretical possibility of an increase in the cancer rate is some tiny portion of that already very small number.

Fun fact: It's actually believed in the scientific community that the act of mining fissionable materials and using them in nuclear power plants probably DECREASES the total deaths due to radiation. This is because, left in the ground, these materials contribute to the production of radon gas. But, removed, utilized and safely disposed of, they no longer release radiation into the ground. Extraction of coal by contrast, releases radon into the air and increases the risk substantially.

Food for thought: anti-nuclear folks like to scare people with the meltdown boogieman. But American reactors are much, much safer than you think. The worst case, scenario (that of a total core meltdown a la Chernobyl) is estimated to occur only once in 2 BILLION YEARS of reactor operation. And then, it is estimated that 2 out of 3 such incidents will result in no deaths at all. Only one out of five of these incidents would likely result in 10,000 deaths or greater. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

These are statistics from 2003 in regards to a decrease in illness and closing of nuclear reactors.

http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/reactorclosings.html

This is the bio of Joseph Mangano, who I quoted in my earlier post.

Mr. Mangano is a public health administrator and researcher who has studied the connection between low-dose radiation exposure and subsequent risk of diseases such as cancer and damage to newborns.

He has published numerous articles and letters in medical and other journals in addition to books, including Low Level Radiation and Immune System Disorders: An Atomic Era Legacy. There he examines the connection between radiation exposure and current widespread health problems.

Originally Posted by radind

Solar alone is a problem. Some form of energy storage would also be required. There is no reason that energy storage cannot be developed with commitment of resources over time.

Germany already has this technology of storage. I'll have to research where I recently read an article about it. I'll get back to you about this.

If all you're comparing nuclear power to is fossil-fuel generation, of course nuclear is going to look better. If you're comparing it to the entire range of possible power sources, though, it doesn't look so good. A lot of the reason isn't environmental or public-health related at all, but economic. Nuclear power is expensive compared to just about anything else. Wind and solar both beat the crap out of it, and both of those are environmentally superior to nuclear as well. If we HAD to use nuclear in order to transition away from coal and oil, then we should do it; however, we don't, and therefore we shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ahh Germany. Could you now inform everyone that it produced that record number (actually 23.95 GW) during a mid-day peak on July 21^st but that average solar power produced in Germany is significantly less than that record number (weather in that region is not exactly ideal for solar) and even then, only at peak times?

Could you also inform everyone what the percentage German solar power generation (do you even know what a gigawatt is?) is compared to the total electricity generated (hint: a bit under 700 terawatts*) by German producers?

Could you then inform everyone that the vast majority of German electricity (45%) is produced by (survey says!) coal? Indeed, Germany is one of the biggest burners of coal (per capita) to generate electricity in the world. And it gets even better; Germany plans on building 26 new coal plants. Why would it do this you might ask? Well because it shuttered 8 nuclear plants recently and simply put, there is no way for renewables to replace that much of a decline in production. Of course suddenly shutting down 8 nuclear power plants has consequences. Those kinds of things tend to happen when politicians make engineering decisions instead of engineers.

*Note: This figure does not include energy sources used for fuel and heating.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ahh Germany. Could you now inform everyone that it produced that record number (actually 23.95 GW) during a mid-day peak on July 21^st but that average solar power produced in Germany is significantly less than that record number (weather in that region is not exactly ideal for solar) and even then, only at peak times?

Could you also inform everyone what the percentage German solar power generation (do you even know what a gigawatt is?) is compared to the total electricity generated (hint: a bit under 700 terawatts*) by German producers?

Could you then inform everyone that the vast majority of German electricity (45%) is produced by (survey says!) coal? Indeed, Germany is one of the biggest burners of coal (per capita) to generate electricity in the world. And it gets even better; Germany plans on building 26 new coal plants. Why would it do this you might ask? Well because it shuttered 8 nuclear plants recently and simply put, there is no way for renewables to replace that much of a decline in production. Of course suddenly shutting down 8 nuclear power plants has consequences. Those kinds of things tend to happen when politicians make engineering decisions instead of engineers.

*Note: This figure does not include energy sources used for fuel and heating.

Maybe the point is that at least there are strides being taken in Germany toward a viable alternative energy.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Fusion is the ultimate answer, but it will be a few decades arriving.

When I was a kid and you a young adult they were saying the same thing. I'll believe it when I see it.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Maybe the point is that at least there are strides being taken in Germany toward a viable alternative energy.

Sure, and it's commendable.

However you should not mistake building more renewable generators to mean a viable alternative to replace all non-renewable methods of energy production. These are two radically different ideas and you should not conflate the two like a lot of people do.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Just because a nuclear plant is located inland, doesn't mean that it's safe. There's solid evidence that communities living in the proximity of nuclear plants have a higher incidence of cancer and other maladies. How many want one built anywhere near their home? Plus, violent weather and other factors, like earthquakes, could play a large part in adding to the extreme dangers. Not to mention the whole question of what to continuing doing with the nuclear waste.

Better than a smelter. Ever been near an oil refinery?

We must be objective. No fuel is without its hazards. Even with solar power, a concentrated ray of collected sunlight that got misdirected would be a literal death ray.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Better than a smelter. Ever been near an oil refinery?

We must be objective. No fuel is without its hazards. Even with solar power, a concentrated ray of collected sunlight that got misdirected would be a literal death ray.

There are exceptions to every rule - but "a literal death ray?" I wonder if that was what Flash Gordan used as a weapon?

Actual Martian Ray gun prop used in the Flash Gordan series:





Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Despite any statements of what is or is not equivalent to what else, here is an unequivocal statement. Enough solar energy falls on the Earth to provide thousands of times the current global energy consumption. It is certainly possible to meet all of humanity's energy needs this way for the foreseeable future, provided we manage to stabilize our population (and if we don't, we have bigger problems). The only thing that has kept us from doing so up to now is economics, not energy availability. That is, solar power could not compete in terms of price with fossil fuels. Increasingly, it can. This is due partly to reduction in the cost of solar power and partly to rising costs of fossil fuels. At some point in the quite-near future, those lines will cross and then we WILL replace fossil fuels with solar (and wind) power, because it will make economic sense -- short-term, immediate economic sense -- to do so. It already makes long-term economic sense. It already makes environmental sense. And it has always been possible.

Originally Posted by Deb C

These are statistics from 2003 in regards to a decrease in illness and closing of nuclear reactors.

http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/reactorclosings.html

This is the bio of Joseph Mangano, who I quoted in my earlier post.

Mr. Mangano is a public health administrator and researcher who has studied the connection between low-dose radiation exposure and subsequent risk of diseases such as cancer and damage to newborns.

He has published numerous articles and letters in medical and other journals in addition to books, including Low Level Radiation and Immune System Disorders: An Atomic Era Legacy. There he examines the connection between radiation exposure and current widespread health problems.

The Joseph Mangano who engages in blatant cherry picking in order to lie to the public? That's your go to source?

Please go learn what the appeal to authority fallacy is and then get back to us.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Locating a plant inland doesn't avoid the danger of contaminating ocean life? Do you get what "inland" means?

Fukishima also contaminated all the land around it. Can you read?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ahh Germany. Could you now inform everyone that it produced that record number (actually 23.95 GW) during a mid-day peak on July 21^st but that average solar power produced in Germany is significantly less than that record number (weather in that region is not exactly ideal for solar) and even then, only at peak times?

Could you also inform everyone what the percentage German solar power generation (do you even know what a gigawatt is?) is compared to the total electricity generated (hint: a bit under 700 terawatts*) by German producers?

Could you then inform everyone that the vast majority of German electricity (45%) is produced by (survey says!) coal? Indeed, Germany is one of the biggest burners of coal (per capita) to generate electricity in the world. And it gets even better; Germany plans on building 26 new coal plants. Why would it do this you might ask? Well because it shuttered 8 nuclear plants recently and simply put, there is no way for renewables to replace that much of a decline in production. Of course suddenly shutting down 8 nuclear power plants has consequences. Those kinds of things tend to happen when politicians make engineering decisions instead of engineers.

*Note: This figure does not include energy sources used for fuel and heating.

Which is exactly what we need; provided they are the right politicians. They do have a powerful Green Party there. Perhaps the people can overrule the politicians if they make the wrong decision and go for more coal. There is no excuse for not moving away from coal and nuclear power and switching to renewable, green energy. What needs to happen in addition to building more solar plants, is build the line from the northern deserts of Africa after solar plants are built there. Now that Libya is becoming more stable and democratic, that is getting more possible. This will take some time and a change in policy, but it can be done.

However you should not mistake building more renewable generators to mean a viable alternative to replace all non-renewable methods of energy production. These are two radically different ideas and you should not conflate the two like a lot of people do.

Not only are the two ideas identical, but absolutely necessary and urgent. Non-renewable means exactly that; in the long run there won't be any, so it must all be replaced. The sooner we start, the easier it will be. We have already wasted 43 years since Earth Day. How much longer must we wait for Republicans, Conservatives, Greedy Executives and Libertarian-Anarchists to get out of the way?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Fukishima also contaminated all the land around it. Can you read?

Fukashima is not just on the coast, it is on a coast directly exposed to the Pacific Ocean. What does that have to do with a plant located on an inland lake, which was the point i made earlier?

Originally Posted by Deb C

I already posted a reference to the contrary back at #3601 of this thread.

Repost:

In a nut shell, the following quote is from Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project

In addition to meltdowns, there is the matter of routine emissions from reactors and elevated cancer rates near reactors, demonstrated in many studies. Finally, the U. S. and other nations still have no long-term plans to store the massive amounts of hazardous nuclear waste.

Post one study that is not biased (i.e. was performed by a uiversity or non-interested party). I've looked, and there are none that pass the smell test. This is a topic much like religion, where opinion tends to rule. Now, compare whatever you find to the deaths of coal miners or oil-field roughnecks.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If all you're comparing nuclear power to is fossil-fuel generation, of course nuclear is going to look better. If you're comparing it to the entire range of possible power sources, though, it doesn't look so good. A lot of the reason isn't environmental or public-health related at all, but economic. Nuclear power is expensive compared to just about anything else. Wind and solar both beat the crap out of it, and both of those are environmentally superior to nuclear as well. If we HAD to use nuclear in order to transition away from coal and oil, then we should do it; however, we don't, and therefore we shouldn't.

The transition source seems to be natural gas at the moment, though much of that is due to the costs imposed on building a nuclear plant in the first place ... much if not all of it shear obstructionism. Using natural gas has issues too. All sources do - even solar. There is no ideal answer here.