Comments on: U.S. Liberals on Nuclear: “It’s Complicated.” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Merle Nodarse http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-95587 Merle Nodarse Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:34:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-95587 The two of us have now been checking into solar energy for approximately a couple of years and then the two of us finally made the actual commitment primarily based upon the combination of governtment incentive packages together with seriously practical loans. My spouse and i will have already been checking into solar energy for approximately a couple of years and as a consequence my partner and i last but not least made the commitment based primarily upon the mix of the governtment incentive programs in addition to very practical lending. I basically could not imagine just how reasonable everything ended up being and as a consequence we have actually already been a solar powered home for approximately a calendar month and furthermore almost everything appears as though it is simply working out great. We are able to essentially sit back and watch just how very much electricity our organization aer preserving each week and it is undoubtedly really awesome. I alway assumed that solar was probably supported by just a good deal of hoopla however My partner and i will certainly tell everyone that the product is actually the genuine deal. My spouse and i wish my partner and i had done it a long time ago. The two of us have now been checking into solar energy for approximately a couple of years and then the two of us finally made the actual commitment primarily based upon the combination of governtment incentive packages together with seriously practical loans. My spouse and i will have already been checking into solar energy for approximately a couple of years and as a consequence my partner and i last but not least made the commitment based primarily upon the mix of the governtment incentive programs in addition to very practical lending. I basically could not imagine just how reasonable everything ended up being and as a consequence we have actually already been a solar powered home for approximately a calendar month and furthermore almost everything appears as though it is simply working out great. We are able to essentially sit back and watch just how very much electricity our organization aer preserving each week and it is undoubtedly really awesome. I alway assumed that solar was probably supported by just a good deal of hoopla however My partner and i will certainly tell everyone that the product is actually the genuine deal. My spouse and i wish my partner and i had done it a long time ago.

]]> By: JimHopf http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-95341 JimHopf Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:42:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-95341 #24, Uranium mining does have some impact. In fact, it is probably the one significant negative impact from nuclear power. That said, the uranium mining's impact is much lower than that of coal mining, on a per unit energy basis. Natural gas extraction (shale gas fracking in particular) is also likely to be as bad or worse than uranium mining. It should also be noted that modern uranium mines will be much safer and have lower environmental impact than the old (1950's) mines that are the source of much of what you are talking about. More importantly, whereas uranium mining is the main impact of nuclear, the (larger) mining impacts for fossil fuels are a tiny fraction of their overall impacts, with the impacts of their combustion being much greater. In addition to global warming, the EPA estimates that fossil power plant pollution causes 25,000 deaths annually in the US alone. The overall result is that nuclear's overall impacts are negligible compared to fossil fuels. It should also be noted that renewables are not perfect either. On a per unit energy basis, sources like solar and wind require over 20 times as much steel and concrete as nuclear does. They also employ rare earth elements. For all of these materials, extraction is not completely benign. Finally, there is the fact that renewables require over 100 times as much land area to be set aside (i.e., developed - covered with industrial equipment) as nuclear does. #24,

Uranium mining does have some impact. In fact, it is probably the one significant negative impact from nuclear power. That said, the uranium mining’s impact is much lower than that of coal mining, on a per unit energy basis. Natural gas extraction (shale gas fracking in particular) is also likely to be as bad or worse than uranium mining. It should also be noted that modern uranium mines will be much safer and have lower environmental impact than the old (1950′s) mines that are the source of much of what you are talking about.

More importantly, whereas uranium mining is the main impact of nuclear, the (larger) mining impacts for fossil fuels are a tiny fraction of their overall impacts, with the impacts of their combustion being much greater. In addition to global warming, the EPA estimates that fossil power plant pollution causes 25,000 deaths annually in the US alone. The overall result is that nuclear’s overall impacts are negligible compared to fossil fuels.

It should also be noted that renewables are not perfect either. On a per unit energy basis, sources like solar and wind require over 20 times as much steel and concrete as nuclear does. They also employ rare earth elements. For all of these materials, extraction is not completely benign. Finally, there is the fact that renewables require over 100 times as much land area to be set aside (i.e., developed – covered with industrial equipment) as nuclear does.

]]> By: JimHopf http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-95340 JimHopf Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:33:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-95340 #8, Even if you do (conservatively) use the linear no-threshhold assumption (LNT), it's still true that few, if any, will die from the Fukishima event. Collective public exposures are minimal, due to the fact that much less was released than Chernobyl, they evacuated the population, and they are monitoring and controlling food. The threshhold for public evacuation that was applied (5 Rem) corresponds to a cancer risk of 0.2%, even assuming LNT. Few actual people will get that much, and the 0.2% value is clearly conservative (high). It should be noted that although the BEIR committee decided to stick with the (conservative and simple) LNT approach for the purposes of making policy and regulations, they also went on record saying that the practice of taking LNT to the extreme, and predicting deaths based on miniscule doses over huge populations, is bad science. The real truth is that any such effects are far too low to measure, and will never be proven either way. In any event, collective radiation exposure from nuclear power is a negligible fraction of what we get from other sources (e.g., radon) , and we're not doing anything at all to reduce those exposures. Even people living near plants only get ~0.1% of the exposure they get from natural background. The undue level of attention nuclear gets is utterly hypocritical, whether LNT is true or not. It is also true that public health risks and environmental impacts from nuclear are negligible compared to fossil fuels (even assuming LNT). You may be right that Chernobyl will cause "thousands" of deaths. Calculations based on LNT estimate as much as ~10,000. This must be compared, however, to the hundreds of thousands of ANNUAL deaths inflicted by fossil fuel power plants (EPA, WHO), as well as global warming. It's also true that it's not really fair to include Chernobyl in any discussion of future nuclear policy, given that noone is proposing to build, or even use, reactors that are remotely like it. Even if Fukishima is included, (non-Soviet) nuclear power has caused few, if any, public deaths, over its entire 40+ year history. This, compared to millions of deaths over the same time period from fossil plants. Your about nuclear needing 9 years for energy payback is ridiculous. Nuclear's energy inputs are negligible: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html Any studies you may have read that suggest otherwise are an example of the tripe that comes out of highly agenda-driven anti-nuclear organizations. Nuclear's net CO2 emissions are also negligible, lower than most renewables: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf As for economics, no renewable sources are signifcantly cheaper than nuclear: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html On top of that, renewables will never be able to meet most, let alone all, of our energy needs, due to intermittentcy limitations. For the rest, it's between fossil and nuclear, and the comparison couldn't be more clear with respect to health risk and environmental impact. Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse. The science is very clear on this. #8,

Even if you do (conservatively) use the linear no-threshhold assumption (LNT), it’s still true that few, if any, will die from the Fukishima event. Collective public exposures are minimal, due to the fact that much less was released than Chernobyl, they evacuated the population, and they are monitoring and controlling food. The threshhold for public evacuation that was applied (5 Rem) corresponds to a cancer risk of 0.2%, even assuming LNT. Few actual people will get that much, and the 0.2% value is clearly conservative (high).

It should be noted that although the BEIR committee decided to stick with the (conservative and simple) LNT approach for the purposes of making policy and regulations, they also went on record saying that the practice of taking LNT to the extreme, and predicting deaths based on miniscule doses over huge populations, is bad science. The real truth is that any such effects are far too low to measure, and will never be proven either way. In any event, collective radiation exposure from nuclear power is a negligible fraction of what we get from other sources (e.g., radon) , and we’re not doing anything at all to reduce those exposures. Even people living near plants only get ~0.1% of the exposure they get from natural background. The undue level of attention nuclear gets is utterly hypocritical, whether LNT is true or not.

It is also true that public health risks and environmental impacts from nuclear are negligible compared to fossil fuels (even assuming LNT). You may be right that Chernobyl will cause “thousands” of deaths. Calculations based on LNT estimate as much as ~10,000. This must be compared, however, to the hundreds of thousands of ANNUAL deaths inflicted by fossil fuel power plants (EPA, WHO), as well as global warming. It’s also true that it’s not really fair to include Chernobyl in any discussion of future nuclear policy, given that noone is proposing to build, or even use, reactors that are remotely like it. Even if Fukishima is included, (non-Soviet) nuclear power has caused few, if any, public deaths, over its entire 40+ year history. This, compared to millions of deaths over the same time period from fossil plants.

Your about nuclear needing 9 years for energy payback is ridiculous. Nuclear’s energy inputs are negligible:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html

Any studies you may have read that suggest otherwise are an example of the tripe that comes out of highly agenda-driven anti-nuclear organizations. Nuclear’s net CO2 emissions are also negligible, lower than most renewables:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

As for economics, no renewable sources are signifcantly cheaper than nuclear:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

On top of that, renewables will never be able to meet most, let alone all, of our energy needs, due to intermittentcy limitations. For the rest, it’s between fossil and nuclear, and the comparison couldn’t be more clear with respect to health risk and environmental impact. Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse. The science is very clear on this.

]]> By: James Aach http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-95107 James Aach Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:38:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-95107 One of the interesting things about modern nuclear power in the US is that few really understand how it works day to day, and I include in that bin most scientists and journalists who are commenting to the media on the topic. It’s kind of treated as a black box from which occasionally spews toxic goo. While not necessarily leading to incorrect assumptions, this is perhaps not the best way to look at any of our potential energy supplies if we are to make better decisions about them in the future. Hundreds of nuclear workers are busy every day at every reactor. What are they doing? I’ve worked in the US nuclear industry for 25 years. My novel “Rad Decision” culminates in an event very similar to the Japanese tragedy. (Same reactor type, same initial problem – a station blackout with scram.) The book is an excellent source of perspective for the lay person — as I’ve been hearing from readers. The novel is free online at the moment at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . (No adverts, nobody makes money off this site.) Reader reviews are in the homepage comments. Unfortunately, my media presence consists of this little-known book and website, so I’m not an acknowledged “expert”. I just do the nuclear stuff for a living. And I think I have explained it well in a non-yawn-producing manner. But it’s a bit of a tree falling in a forest……… I believe there isn’t a perfect energy solution – just options – each with their good and bad points. And we’ll make better choices about our future if we first understand our energy present. One of the interesting things about modern nuclear power in the US is that few really understand how it works day to day, and I include in that bin most scientists and journalists who are commenting to the media on the topic. It’s kind of treated as a black box from which occasionally spews toxic goo. While not necessarily leading to incorrect assumptions, this is perhaps not the best way to look at any of our potential energy supplies if we are to make better decisions about them in the future. Hundreds of nuclear workers are busy every day at every reactor. What are they doing?

I’ve worked in the US nuclear industry for 25 years. My novel “Rad Decision” culminates in an event very similar to the Japanese tragedy. (Same reactor type, same initial problem – a station blackout with scram.) The book is an excellent source of perspective for the lay person — as I’ve been hearing from readers. The novel is free online at the moment at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . (No adverts, nobody makes money off this site.) Reader reviews are in the homepage comments.

Unfortunately, my media presence consists of this little-known book and website, so I’m not an acknowledged “expert”. I just do the nuclear stuff for a living. And I think I have explained it well in a non-yawn-producing manner. But it’s a bit of a tree falling in a forest………

I believe there isn’t a perfect energy solution – just options – each with their good and bad points. And we’ll make better choices about our future if we first understand our energy present.

]]> By: Peter http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-95045 Peter Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:36:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-95045 Here is the great irony: The anti-nuclear movement will not admit this openly, but while they were vociferously denouncing all forms of nuclear power, the fact remained that carbon-emitting fossil fuels had to take up the slack. Thus by their own tactics, rather than call for safer nuclear, which will be a certainty post Fukushima, they influenced policy makers to not deploy safer green nuclear, thus exacerbating the problem the past 30 years. The Anti-nuclear movement had unwilling accomplices - namely Wall Street. In the great quest for infinite safety, which is not reasonable in a risk-based world, (i.e. Bhopal), they sought to drive the cost of large nuclear to infinite cost. Thus while their science may be flawed, since the effects of radiation have been greatly exaggerated in the polemic, their tactic of driving up costs worked. The nuclear industry has become more resiliant. Like the old phrase "that which doesn't kill me will make me stronger", so to will the next phase of nuclear power. Oh and the anti-nuclear movement truely picks and chooses their nuclear targets. After the radiation therapy accident in Goiana Brazil, that killed 4 people and contaminated an entire town, the press was no where to be seen. Radiation therapy continues today because it is perceived as a benefit. I am sure many in the anti-nuclear have benefitted from treatment. As Fukushima subsides, the fact remains that the media did a disservice in the science arena. When Bill Nye the science guy trudges out a picture of a PWR versus a BWR, to educate the masses, then we are all in trouble. Fukushima has made us more aware of the complicated technology and the dedication of those in the industry that are making all efforts to protect the public. The other item, the GE plants are but one aspect of plant design. While a reactor supplier true, the vast majority of plant safety relies on the construction and design by Architect/Engineers, and the safe operation of trained staff. In the USA, there are a wide spectrum of AE firms that built the plants that house the GE Mark I reactors. There is a spectrum of utilities that have differing levels of safety. What is lost in this argument by anti-nuclear forces is not their philosophy, but the apples and oranges comparison of all things BWR, all things nuclear, and all crises. Mother nature threw her worst at Fukushima, and all things considered it could have been alot worst. The hyperbole aside, Fukushima showed that when the landscape is devastated leaving 20,000 dead, the nuclear plant held its ground. Sure there will be improvements and Monday morning quarterbacking about LOCAs and spent fuel pools. The one person I would ask, Bill Clinton, is "Why did you cancel the Integral Fast Reactor"? That is the golden goose that Asia is now looking at as well. Its not proliferant technology either. Here is the great irony: The anti-nuclear movement will not admit this openly, but while they were vociferously denouncing all forms of nuclear power, the fact remained that carbon-emitting fossil fuels had to take up the slack. Thus by their own tactics, rather than call for safer nuclear, which will be a certainty post Fukushima, they influenced policy makers to not deploy safer green nuclear, thus exacerbating the problem the past 30 years. The Anti-nuclear movement had unwilling accomplices – namely Wall Street. In the great quest for infinite safety, which is not reasonable in a risk-based world, (i.e. Bhopal), they sought to drive the cost of large nuclear to infinite cost. Thus while their science may be flawed, since the effects of radiation have been greatly exaggerated in the polemic, their tactic of driving up costs worked. The nuclear industry has become more resiliant. Like the old phrase “that which doesn’t kill me will make me stronger”, so to will the next phase of nuclear power. Oh and the anti-nuclear movement truely picks and chooses their nuclear targets. After the radiation therapy accident in Goiana Brazil, that killed 4 people and contaminated an entire town, the press was no where to be seen. Radiation therapy continues today because it is perceived as a benefit. I am sure many in the anti-nuclear have benefitted from treatment. As Fukushima subsides, the fact remains that the media did a disservice in the science arena. When Bill Nye the science guy trudges out a picture of a PWR versus a BWR, to educate the masses, then we are all in trouble. Fukushima has made us more aware of the complicated technology and the dedication of those in the industry that are making all efforts to protect the public. The other item, the GE plants are but one aspect of plant design. While a reactor supplier true, the vast majority of plant safety relies on the construction and design by Architect/Engineers, and the safe operation of trained staff. In the USA, there are a wide spectrum of AE firms that built the plants that house the GE Mark I reactors. There is a spectrum of utilities that have differing levels of safety. What is lost in this argument by anti-nuclear forces is not their philosophy, but the apples and oranges comparison of all things BWR, all things nuclear, and all crises. Mother nature threw her worst at Fukushima, and all things considered it could have been alot worst. The hyperbole aside, Fukushima showed that when the landscape is devastated leaving 20,000 dead, the nuclear plant held its ground. Sure there will be improvements and Monday morning quarterbacking about LOCAs and spent fuel pools. The one person I would ask, Bill Clinton, is “Why did you cancel the Integral Fast Reactor”? That is the golden goose that Asia is now looking at as well. Its not proliferant technology either.

]]> By: Nullius in Verba http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-94929 Nullius in Verba Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:35:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-94929 <i>"Don’t even read that crap, it will rot your brain."</i> Oh, is <i>that</i> the explanation? ;-) “Don’t even read that crap, it will rot your brain.”

Oh, is that the explanation? ;-)

]]> By: Jamesqf http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-94915 Jamesqf Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:29:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-94915 Might I suggest that denialism really has nothing to do with one's politics? It seems that humans are divided into realists/scientists and wishful thinkers. So if you're a conservative wishful thinker, you go around denying global warming, demanding that we drill for oil that ain't there, and so on. If you're a liberal wishful thinker, you imagine that radiation is going to kill us all, we can get unlimited power from a few square feet of solar panels... And it doesn't matter how often the scientist types of either political persuasion point out the sloppy thinking and errors of basic arithmetic, the wishful thinkers just keep on with their particular brand of wishful thinking, because (as the scorpion said to the horse), that's their nature. Might I suggest that denialism really has nothing to do with one’s politics? It seems that humans are divided into realists/scientists and wishful thinkers. So if you’re a conservative wishful thinker, you go around denying global warming, demanding that we drill for oil that ain’t there, and so on. If you’re a liberal wishful thinker, you imagine that radiation is going to kill us all, we can get unlimited power from a few square feet of solar panels…

And it doesn’t matter how often the scientist types of either political persuasion point out the sloppy thinking and errors of basic arithmetic, the wishful thinkers just keep on with their particular brand of wishful thinking, because (as the scorpion said to the horse), that’s their nature.

]]> By: A Detailed Challenge to Nuclear Fears - NYTimes.com http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-94902 A Detailed Challenge to Nuclear Fears - NYTimes.com Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:44:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-94902 [...] By the way, Chris Mooney is conducting a corollary conversation; are liberals just as bad as science deniers as conservatives? See; “US Liberals on Nuclear ; It’s Complicated.” [...] [...] By the way, Chris Mooney is conducting a corollary conversation; are liberals just as bad as science deniers as conservatives? See; “US Liberals on Nuclear ; It’s Complicated.” [...]

]]> By: Eric the Leaf http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-94897 Eric the Leaf Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:32:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-94897 Unfortunately, a massive new nuclear fleet will demand a level of civil order and continuity without precedent. Nuclear power depends on a stable grid, supply chain, economy and environment far more than it can help to create these things. It's the most complex and least resilient way we could possibly contrive to bring us our basic power needs. It's not just a scientific problem, it's a societal problem. Unfortunately, a massive new nuclear fleet will demand a level of civil order and continuity without precedent. Nuclear power depends on a stable grid, supply chain, economy and environment far more than it can help to create these things. It’s the most complex and least resilient way we could possibly contrive to bring us our basic power needs. It’s not just a scientific problem, it’s a societal problem.

]]> By: Jon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/#comment-94891 Jon Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:32:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16947#comment-94891 Seamus in #21. Yeah, maybe it’s a waste of space. But I’m trying to draw him out as well. If you debate any “skeptic” on this blog for any length of time, they all sound like Chris’s profile of them: http://www.desmogblog.com/what-motivates-climate-skeptic In the past, Nullius has seriously debated with me whether climate scientists are like the statist totalitarians in 1984, whether scientists aren’t victims of “unconscious bias” toward statism, disputed that the quality control in climate science is any better than forgotten environmental tracts published by lone environmental scientists back in the early 70′s, whether social security wasn’t a ponzi scheme, etc. etc. … Seamus in #21. Yeah, maybe it’s a waste of space. But I’m trying to draw him out as well. If you debate any “skeptic” on this blog for any length of time, they all sound like Chris’s profile of them:

http://www.desmogblog.com/what-motivates-climate-skeptic

In the past, Nullius has seriously debated with me whether climate scientists are like the statist totalitarians in 1984, whether scientists aren’t victims of “unconscious bias” toward statism, disputed that the quality control in climate science is any better than forgotten environmental tracts published by lone environmental scientists back in the early 70′s, whether social security wasn’t a ponzi scheme, etc. etc. …

]]>