24-05-2004 18:56									#1
	What's the problem with nuclear power? Get a bigger avatar today!

Here's an article taken off Drudge from the Independent. I don't believe this global warming nonsense, but I think nuclear energy is a good source of base electricity regardless. (Hard-nosed oil & gas production types could be allies.)

It's still more expensive than coal and natural gas in some parts of the world (US), but it's still pretty cheap. Given this, I wouldn't mind hedging our bets a little. Some nuclear power also would provide hydrogen.

It's a real shame if the greens are only now coming round to nuclear power. Interest rates are going up worldwide, and the price of nuclear power is mostly tied to the interest rates at time of construction/refurbishment. As Hershell would tell you, real interest rates are negative in the US. Interest rates might not be this low again for a generation.

quote: 'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming' Leading environmentalist urges radical rethink on climate change By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor 24 May 2004 Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says. His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call. Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect. He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989. He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001. On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm. He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition. In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular: the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming. These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance of this. Important among the reasons is "the denial of climate change in the US, where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed". He compares the situation to that in Europe in 1938, with the Second World War looming, and nobody knowing what to do. The attachment of the Greens to renewables is "well-intentioned but misguided", he says, like the Left's 1938 attachment to disarmament when he too was a left-winger. He writes today: "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy." His appeal, which in effect is asking the Greens to make a bargain with the devil, is likely to fall on deaf ears, at least at present. "Lovelock is right to demand a drastic response to climate change," Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said last night. "He's right to question previous assumptions. "But he's wrong to think nuclear power is any part of the answer. Nuclear creates enormous problems, waste we don't know what to do with; radioactive emissions; unavoidable risk of accident and terrorist attack." Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Climate change and radioactive waste both pose deadly long-term threats, and we have a moral duty to minimise the effects of both, not to choose between them."

	24-05-2004 19:06									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yay. The greens are coming around to my point of view.

And why don't you believe in global warming when the current consensus among climate scientists is that it's happening? Even if it's not caused by mankind, it's still a good idea to have a zero net emmission policy.

	24-05-2004 19:09									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm for nuclear power.

Our goal should be to develop as much clean energy as possible. And even though there is toxic waste from nuclear power, it can be managed effectively.

	24-05-2004 19:09									#4
	Re: What's the problem with nuclear power? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I see the point of the article about the problems with radioactive waste as valid.

	24-05-2004 19:11									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I'm skeptical that climate scientists have enough good data to form a valid concensus.

But in any event, that's immaterial to this discussion. The greens think it is happening and happening fast. One of the "cures" available is nuclear power. I can justify nuclear power on other grounds, so I am a potential ally for the greens, if they go down this path.

Last edited by DanS on 24-05-2004 at 19:20

	24-05-2004 19:12									#6
	Re: Re: What's the problem with nuclear power? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by BeBro I see the point of the article about the problems with radioactive waste as valid.

Burn Up the Nuclear Waste

	24-05-2004 19:13									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I see the point of the article about the problems with radioactive waste as valid.

Vastly overblown. Coal-fired plants put out a lot more radioactivity than nuke plants. And you can put the radioactive waste in the Nevada desert.

Eventually, we will be able to launch it in to space and give it a heave-ho toward the sun.

	24-05-2004 19:15									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I had a German teacher at University, who was green, feminist and anything left, and she integrated her political propaganda in the language education. So when we were writing an essay in German about environmental issues, I titled mine something like "Wie mann mit Atomkraft der Umwelt verbessert" to protest her.

	24-05-2004 19:26									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You know how the greens are, Ollie. It's a religion to them. Let's worship Gaia and all that useless crap.

	24-05-2004 19:29									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's good to replace an energy source that causes visible and direct problems with one that causes more subtle and hidden problems. That way we can pretend that there are no problems.


A ways from where I live right now (on or near a native reserve, of course) There was a sulphur processing plant and an uranium mine. The two together caused incredible damage to the environment. There where piles of sulper all over that seeped into earth, blew in the wind, ect.. and basically killed everything and the uranium mine? well, who knows... you can't see radiation and there was never any testing to see the extent of it's effect.

So the government decided to clean it up - they planted trees, they picked up garbage, they took the sulpher, dug a whole, and buried it. Now you don't have to see any of it any longer.... but it's still all there. It's just siting under some dirt. It's still mixing into the soil and water, perhaps even more so then before. People say that the dust in the wind still burns holes in their clothes if they hang them out to dry. And there still has been no studies on the condition of the water and radiation levels, despite large cancer and disease rates. But atleast we don't have to see it anymore, right? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

	24-05-2004 19:32									#11
	Re: What's the problem with nuclear power? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DanS Here's an article taken off Drudge from the Independent. I don't believe this global warming nonsense, but I think nuclear energy is a good source of base electricity regardless. (Hard-nosed oil & gas production types could be allies.) It's still more expensive than coal and natural gas in some parts of the world (US), but it's still pretty cheap. Given this, I wouldn't mind hedging our bets a little. Some nuclear power also would provide hydrogen. It's a real shame if the greens are only now coming round to nuclear power. Interest rates are going up worldwide, and the price of nuclear power is mostly tied to the interest rates at time of construction/refurbishment. As Hershell would tell you, real interest rates are negative in the US. Interest rates might not be this low again for a generation.

bingo, its not as profitable as coal.

	24-05-2004 19:40									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS Vastly overblown. Coal-fired plants put out a lot more radioactivity than nuke plants. And you can put the radioactive waste in the Nevada desert. Eventually, we will be able to launch it in to space and give it a heave-ho toward the sun.

...or, perhaps, we'll advance far enough that the "waste" will become useful again.

	24-05-2004 20:10									#13
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS Eventually, we will be able to launch it in to space and give it a heave-ho toward the sun.

How much weight would we be lifting for dilution and containment, compared to the weight of radioactive material?

The problems with waste disposal aren't the theoretical and engineering issues, it's the Homer Simpsons who'd be involved on the human side.

And who (other than the Feds?) would want to run the commercial risks and potential liability from the early development phase through decommissioning?

	24-05-2004 20:12									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Your scepticism about global warming is a survival.

I don't think there is much of a doubting voice left.

Because the idea sparked various sets of measurements and the results starting to come in all point the same way.

A striking one is salinity at the bottom of the Gulf Stream. Measurements of salinity have been taken for some time but when the global warming debate got under way it occured to scientists that a change to weather patterns in the north (which persistently warmer weather would bring) would show up in reduced salinity there. Because of an increased flow of fresh water into the ocean.

The results are in. Salinity is shown already to have dropped by a whopping 20%.

A graph of earlier changes shows the random peaks and troughs to be expected. But at a discrete point that stopped and a steady drop began which has inexorably continued building to the overall 20% drop.

I saw an interview with the British scientist who first charted this. He and his colleagues were initially convinced their measurements or methodology was somehow going wrong. Because the result was too dramatic to be readily believed. He did not publish until confirming his results with others who have been carrying out measurements also.

This has particular significance for the UK. The change in salinity is going to interfere with the mechanism which generates the Gulf Stream. Without it the UK will have a Scandinavian sort of weather. A lot colder than we are used to with plenty of snow and ice in the winter.

Scientists are not debating if this is going to happen but when. Apparently it may well not happen for twenty years or more. But it might just be going to happen within ten.

Meanwhile this year when I was skiing and we were admiring the glacier on top of the mountain I asked the instructor how far it had retreated recently. I expected to be told a few hundred yards but he pointed to a spot not far from the lift station - which was maybe a mile and a half or two miles from what is left (which must be the merest fragment). That is how far it had retreated in just ten years. He then told me that no ski lifts are being built in the Alps at under 2,000 metres any more because no one expects there to be snow at that level for more than a very short time each season.

The UK has been conceding land to the sea around our shores (amidst great complaint by local farmers) for a decade and no one thinks this is going to stop. The talk at the moment is to tripple what we spend on flood control so as to move the flood barriers inland to the next defensible points.

But don't worry, Dan. You guys may be shown to be dead right to use power (and emit CO2) as though there is no to-morrow.

	24-05-2004 20:17									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

One fast neutron reactor can dispose of a majority of the wastes from several light water reactors, and generate energy in the process. Because of Jimmiy Carter. The USA does not have any fast neutron reactors, but the technology could be either finished here in a few years, or licensed at any time from France.

	24-05-2004 20:20									#16
	Support Apolyton

Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

	24-05-2004 20:23									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I am a big supporter of nuclear power for ecological reasons. I think the German greens are completely out of the loop, as they shutted down Germany's nuclear power and replaced it with stinking coal and oil plants.

There's a reason France has the cleanest air of Europe - and that's because we have almost no fossil power plants.

	24-05-2004 20:25									#18
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yep... nuclear power is MUCH better for the air quality than coal or oil burning plants. Unfortunately they also cost a lot, which really doesn't make it too feasible for a lot of companies. Now you could go the France route and have the government help out, but I'm not sure how well that would go over.

	24-05-2004 20:26									#19
	Support Apolyton

Untill we have a working space elevator, nukes are not a good idea.

	24-05-2004 20:30									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

However, one should not forget that nuclear power plant is not a satisfying long-term solution. It is expected that uranium will deplete faster than fossil resources (in this century actually), and nuclear waste will pose a problem at some point. Not to mention the risk of meltdown that cannot be forgotten (at the end of 1999, a huge storm has wrecked havoc in France, and among other things, seriously threatened an old nuclear plant near Bordeaux).

I favor nuclear power only until we can find efficient sustainable power, such as efficient solar power plants, wind power, tidal power etc. Money has to be poured in research, because power and pollution will become increasingly important questions in the coming decades, especially as newly developed countries will pollute like hell.

	24-05-2004 20:33									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Now you could go the France route and have the government help out, but I'm not sure how well that would go over.

You mean, politically, or economically?

Economically, EDF is the biggest electricity company in Europe, and IIRC, in the world. It provides a rather cheap electricity, and I guess it is competitive, since we sell loads of electricity to other countries.

Unfortunately, we are now selling this gem for a bargain to the capital. But IIRC, the State will remain involved in the maintenance of nuclear power plants, because we don't feel like having a privately-made Chernobyl.

	24-05-2004 20:33									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat How much weight would we be lifting for dilution and containment, compared to the weight of radioactive material?

Ah, but that wouldn't matter - since we would have a limitless source of nuclear energy!

	24-05-2004 20:50									#23
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: You mean, politically, or economically?

Well the politics of the economics . Americans probably wouldn't go for massively state-run electricity generation. They'd see their taxes rise and ask why can't the private market do it.

	24-05-2004 20:53									#24
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Americans probably wouldn't go for massively state-run electricity generation. They'd see their taxes rise and ask why can't the private market do it.

And you wonder why everybody thinks Americans are stupid

	24-05-2004 20:58									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The de-commissioning costs for nuclear power stations are so very large I cannot believe the power produced can be comparable in price.

If you leave ecological damage out of account.

If you count it in, then it gets beyond me to balance off all the factors as regards nuclear plants.

Fossil fuels, though, have plainly got to go. Only, I think, the USA clings to the hope that fossil fuels can continue to be burned up in vast quantities with impunity.

They elect weak politicians without the strength of character or mind to lead. So the "leaders" are led by their fear of what they think will be unpopular with the electorate.

	24-05-2004 20:59									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I am a big supporter of nuclear power for ecological reasons. I think the German greens are completely out of the loop, as they shutted down Germany's nuclear power and replaced it with stinking coal and oil plants. There's a reason France has the cleanest air of Europe - and that's because we have almost no fossil power plants.

I've heard though that the gulf of Biscaye (sp?) is alarmingly radio-active. And it's not much fun swimming offshore La Haye either.

And if the skies over France are the cleanest in Europe *cough* Paris *cough*, it has more to do with France 'exporting' its pollution to, lets say, Scandinavia, then that France has such a great environmental stance.

	24-05-2004 21:01									#27
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: you wonder why everybody thinks Americans are stupid

Well why should the government get involved in electricity generation?

	24-05-2004 21:04									#28
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

yea, water vapor is a green house gas suprisingly enough. There is 30 times more of it in the atmosphere then C02.

	24-05-2004 21:09									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by germanos I've heard though that the gulf of Biscaye (sp?) is alarmingly radio-active. And it's not much fun swimming offshore La Haye either.

Indeed, and that's why nuclear power plants are located in remote areas. I never said it was perfectly clean. But the dirty is localized (don't forget La Haye treats nuclear waste from abroad, which included Germany, and still includes Japan... I would guess most of the world's civilian nuclear waste goes through there - pretty much low pollution for such energy, don't you think?)

I wonder how much the temperature would rise if all the electic pollution ending up in La Haye was produced with fossil fuels instead. That could be interesting...

quote: And if the skies over France are the cleanest in Europe *cough* Paris *cough*, it has more to do with France 'exporting' its pollution to, lets say, Scandinavia, then that France has such a great environmental stance.

France isn't the only oceanic, windy country in Europe...

This has definitely to do with our energitic stance, which has considerable advantages regarding air pollution: much inner-city traffic is performed with electric mass transit, almost all of our electric production is non-fossil, inter-city traffic is significantly made with electric trains. Our biggest flaw in this regard is freight transport, which is almost uniquely transported by trucks.

	24-05-2004 21:30									#30
	Inflate your Upload Space

France's stance has a lot to do with having no coal or oil and a Gaulist determination to be dependant on nobody for anything.

But there is little wrong with sturdy independance and if it happens to turn out that you have got ahead of the global warming game then great, the world can benefit from the expertise you have built up.

But the ecological case has to take account of de-commissioning and you are not ahead of that game. We are currently de-commissioning our first generation of nuclear plants and no private company would touch the task. Nor could society ever rely on anything which has the ability just to go finacially bust for such a thing. So de-commissioning will always have to be underwritten by government and the tax payer.

It may turn out to be prohibitive.

Simply learning to use less power is a simple thing we can all do. I commend that as a good start.