An important benefit of nuclear accidents: Reminder.

[NNadir]

Many people think that nuclear accidents only cause three headed animals, like the cows and sheep now found in Pennsylvannia in wide numbers as a result of Three Mile Island, and giant insects the size of Sherman tanks, and even small cruise liners, like the giant centipedes that destroyed Kiev and some cities in Belarus, including Minsk, after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Other people focus on the activation of giant mutated prehistoric creatures like Godzilla, Gamera, and Rodan that resulted from the use of nuclear power in Japan.

As usual, people only focus on the negatives, and magnify their importance (although it is hard to magnify Godzilla). For this reason, I feel compelled to offer this important editorial opinion that points to the much missed benefit of nuclear accidents:

We Must Expand Our Nuclear Power Program If We're To Realize Our Dream Of Superhero Mutants

By T.J. Prima
March 6, 2006 | Issue 42•10

As the search for alternative energy sources continues, many decry nuclear energy as an unsafe and irresponsible option. Admittedly, dangers exist, but innovation always involves risk, for the best ideas often result from happy accidents. Indeed, perhaps a catastrophic meltdown would be the best thing that could happen. To abandon nuclear energy is to risk something far greater than another Chernobyl. It is to risk the loss of future superpowered, costumed heroes.

If we fail to encourage our scientists to get trapped in a malfunctioning reactor as warning klaxons ring across the facility, and menacing numbers on a nearby wall-screen count down to zero, their frail human physiologies will never receive the massive doses of radiation necessary to transform them into glowing metallic-chrome beings with nuclei-and-electron symbols emblazoned on their muscular chests. As our country takes on the innumerable challenges of the 21st century, we need—now more than ever—cosmic, glowing superbeings capable of harnessing the power of the atom to fight crime.

While we possess the technology to irradiate common household insects in educational experiments gone awry, we inexplicably have not yet done so. Not one high-school student has been exposed to the bite of such a radioactive insect and developed spider-like powers...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46035

Note that the recent Spiderman movies, starring Kirsten Dunst and what's-his-name, misrepresent the creation of Spiderman as resulting from a bite from a genetically modified spider. This is a clear distortion of history. Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, which resulted in his mutation into Spiderman.

The misrepresentation of history and science by Hollywood is appalling.

[DODI]

1. Thanks, this will be posted by the copier at work tomorrow!

[jpak]

4. Post this too

Three Mile Island was a $1+ billion accident.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/cleanup032889.htm

Chernobyl killed dozens immediately, sickened thousands of children under the age of 5 with thyroid cancer, will kill thousands more in the future and rendered thousands of hectares of human habitat uninhabitable.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

...and who "benefits" from any of this????

No one.

Now THAT's funny...

:rofl:

[NNadir]

5. Actually with billions of tons of pollutants removed from the environment

everybody benefits.

As I frequently point out, nuclear energy is not risk free, it is only risk minimized. To the extent that nuclear losses exist - they are in fact tiny when it is considered that nuclear energy produces almost 30 exajoules of primary energy.

The cost of fossil fuels - which runs at billions of dollars per day easily dwarfs any concern about the events in Harrisburg 35 years ago.

Unfortunately, the myths of Rodan and Gamera actually inform nuclear hysteria and all such anti-nuclear arguments are basically on the level of truck sized centipedes and the like.

Even if Three Mile Island was a billion dollar accident - and the destruction of the valuable asset of the plant itself was an expensive event to be sure - although the number of injuries did not even reach the level of the coal mine disaster in Mexico a few weeks ago - it is the only such expensive accident in the United States for a 50 year history of nuclear power.

(Why no concern, no tears: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=43122&mesg_id=43122. Oh remember why...the only injuries that count are nuclear injuries - a nuclear death 20 years ago is worth 5,000,000 deaths from any other cause.)

Only someone who believes in three headed cows - and worries about them - could possibly imagine that the price of ordinary particulates, never mind global climate change, could come in so cheaply in life, financial cost, environmental cost, and moral cost as nuclear power comes in.

All anti-nuclear arguments sound like they come from the Onion, except that Onion is sophisticated in the sense that it knows exactly how ridiculous it sounds.

[htuttle]

6. With a few exceptions, dangers from nukes aren't terribly exaggerated

Most people who rationally critique nuclear power don't talk about mutant centipedes. They talk about the long-term dangers of nuclear waste, and the danger of catastrophically releasing radioactive iodine that would be likely to cause cancer in a lot of people. And a nuclear power plant being run by avaricious and short-sighted capitalists can be a dangerous thing indeed for the people in the nearby area (as can a lot of types of industrial plants in the same hands).

HOWEVER, you do have a good point in that the very real dangers from the forms of energy we're using today in many ways dwarf the dangers of nuclear power. Not just from global warming, which merely threatens our civilization and billions of our lives, but from shorter term individual dangers like cancer and respiratory illness. Petroleum is a powerful carcinogen all by itself. Read your cans of 10w40 oil if you don't believe that. Most of them carry a cancer warning nowdays just like a pack of cigarettes. Asthma and other respiratory illnesses are also provoked by what's carried off in the smoke of burned petroleum. And, of course, CO2 emissions threaten all vertebrate life on Earth in the worst case.

A real problem in this debate (unless we want to go in circles forever as the oceans rise to our necks) is that most people fail to put somewhat rare, 'glamorized' dangers in perspective with the more widespread general dangers almost all of us face everyday. Ever LOOK at the percentage chance of dying in a traffic accident? Ever LOOK at the percentage chance of simply getting killed by a stupid home accident? Hell, over 30,000 Americans die each year of the flu. We think, however, that we can individually exert some control over those things, although hundreds of thousands of us per year still fail to avoid death in the most banal and ridiculous of ways. In the 18+ years I've been in the taxi business, I've had a total of 6 colleagues killed simply trying to get through their regular work days (or nights).

The fear of death by nuclear power is similar to the fear of death by terrorism -- both are blown out of proportion compared to the dangers we face just getting around day to day in the belly of this mechanized, carnivorous beast we call modern society. Both risks pale in comparison to the long term (and short term) statistical risks of driving down to the 7-11 through traffic in your sulfur-dioxide-spewing SUV and eating a nitrate-laden hot dog. But it doesn't SEEM that way, so the misconceptions remain.

If you want to compare the dangers of nuclear power with wind or solar, then you're talking about a real difference. Wind and solar can be made nearly innocuous as far as risks go. Even with the best of technologies and responsible operations, nukes are always going to carry a certain amount of danger. Now if you all want to go live on Walden Pond and do without all the conveniences of modern society (like say, air conditioning and microwave ovens), I'm right with ya -- I've had plenty of decades in the rat race to get my fill of it. And that's where we'll be if we try to use ONLY clean, safe wind and solar for our main power sources right now.

However, I have a strong feeling that most of my fellow Americans aren't quite ready to give up their personal electrical appliances, MTV, and the internet. And this being at least a titular democracy, I have a feeling that the majority of my overfed, pampered country mates will get their way. With that in mind, I think we really need to keep the dangers of each method of energy generation in perspective. If it comes down to burning coal or running nuclear power plants (and realistically that's what it's going to look like in 10 years or less) I'd rather run nuke plants. I'd RATHER NOT that greedy corporate America ran them, but they run everything else in this country, so again, I doubt I'll get my way.

There IS a rational middle ground in this ongoing discussion. Nukes are dangerous, but petroleum and coal are worse, and wind, solar and biomass aren't going to be enough (at least in this next generation...maybe someday)....oh, and greedy capitalists screw up everything they get their hands on...I'm sure they'd screw up wind and solar power somehow if given the incentive.

All that being said, I'm posting this rambling moderate screed against my better judgment. But as I've had three beers this evening, my better judgment isn't what it used to be. (clicks 'Post Message')

[NNadir]

7. Solar energy is "nearly innocuous" only in the case where it is too small

to see, which of course it is, as it produces less than half an exajoule. In the case where it was producing 50 exajoules - and it probably never will - there would be all sorts of carrying on about its environmental impact, which would be huge in terms of waste chemicals, processing plants, carbon dioxide and other factors. (It would not be as bad as any fossil fuel however.)

This should be obvious on a mass balance basis. One must mine, transport, process, assemble, transport again and install many millions of tons of material to generate significant solar energy.

Just because you don't see the pollution problems of solar energy, doesn't mean they doesn't exist.

It cannot be made infinitely innocuous as you suggest.

Biomass is far worse than solar power.

These things have been measured: www.externe.info.

Nukes are not dangerous compared to solar, and they are much safer that biomass burning, which right now kills over 4 million people a year. (Biomass can be made safer in some places, but it will never be completely safe.)

Only hydro and wind are comparable in safety to humans to nukes. Wind is intermittant, and hydro cannot be expanded much in scale. Hydro, of course, is dangerous to things like fish, but who cares about fish?

[htuttle]

8. More apples and oranges comparisons

I did not say solar power IS nearly innocuous. I said it CAN BE MADE nearly innocuous. Passive solar construction and solar water heating ARE innocuous and do save a non-trivial amount of energy. Saving that kind of energy is as good as generating it and using it for the same purpose.

If comparing the risks between heating household water with nuke-generated energy or passive solar energy, there hardly is any comparison. But then again, we need to do far more with energy than just heating water to 120F, don't we? I said the problem with solar and wind are that they aren't going to be enough unless people are willing to give up more than I personally think they're going to be willing to give up.

The energy investment to build a larger solar plant doesn't have to be any different than the energy investment to build any industrial facility of comparable size. If that takes too much energy to do, then so does building a new shoe factory or automobile plant (or god forbid, an aluminum smelter). And like I said, given appropriate financial incentives, I'm sure greedy corporatists could figure out a way to build and run any sort of industrial facility -- including solar and wind -- in a destructive and dangerous way.

Biomass is another one. It can be burned dangerously, like in a campfire, or it can be carbonized in other ways that greatly reduce the amount of both particulates and CO2. Biomass can be grown using petro-fertilizers, or it can be generated using nothing but waste materials.

And I wouldn't worry too much about the effects of hydro on fish if you're saying we should use nothing but nuclear power. The heat pollution effects from many nuclear plants and their (non-radioactive) runoff can be almost as devastating over time to local streams as hydroelectric turbines and dams. Both of those effects can be minimized, but they can also be ignored if there's a financial incentive to do so, and often are.

If our society made decisions in a rational manner, the real decisions we would be making are how much energy do we truly need, and how much effect on both the global and local environment is acceptable given a certain return of energy. Everything costs something, as you often point out. If our society was rational, I'm sure we'd use a whole mix of non-petroleum, non-coal energy sources based on situational needs. Nukes make a good deal of sense to power a whole city or industrial area. They do not make as much sense to power an isolated house in the wilderness by stringing 400 miles of electrical cable to it. It's really a comparing apples and oranges sort of discussion. Hand trowels are lousy at digging the foundation to a building, and a back-hoe is a difficult tool to use to cultivate one's vegetable garden.

But our society does NOT make decisions in a rational manner. Short term profit guides our decision making. The way things are run today, it's never going to be a decision based on the environmental effects of different power sources. It is, and will be, about profit versus investment. We will end up using coal for everything unless we change how our society makes decisions. There will be no nukes plants built out of altruistic environmental concerns in our current world, not if coal can be used at a much higher short term profit.

It's in this world that smaller scale renewable sources like solar and wind start to look very attractive to a lot of us, since it's something I (or a small group of 'I's) can feasibly do on our own. I do not have the resources to build a nuke plant, but I can conceive of powering my own energy needs using a combination of wind, solar and biomass. Sure, as a society we're going to need a lot more energy than that -- I can easily power my computer using 'off grid' sources, but it's damned hard to build a new computer that way. But as things stand today, it's unlikely that any of us will have a real say in the decisions of how that energy is generated unless we're on the board of GE.

Do you see any real trend toward changing this decision making process? If not, why do you think any corporation would invest the millions in building and running a nuke plant when it can just use coal instead? Given that, what are my options as an individual? I can continue to try to change the decision making process and end up 'waiting' for society to come around, or I can take matters into my own hands, and try to generate whatever clean power I can for my household. I do not have an option to build a nuke in my backyard to provide power to my whole city.

on edit: grammer.

[NNadir]

10. I understand some of your points, but let's be realistic about solar PV.

We have an existing silicon based industry: The computer industry. It is an environmental disaster: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2444675.stm

The solar PV industry will require the processing of far more silicon than the computer industry. So it may prove that putting a solar cell on your house is NOT as environmentally benign as you may think. In fact were the processing of solar PV systems done on a small scale distributed basis it would simply represent cases of point source polluters.

I also disagree that biomass can be made as safe as nuclear energy. Clearly it is safer than fossil fuels.

I don't believe that individual actions are necessarily safer. Suppose everyone began making biodiesel in their back yard. Do you really want the handling of methanol being conducted by millions of people, many of whom will have situational ethics? Have you seen the kinds of things people do with gasoline, with paint solvents, batteries and other forms of toxic household waste?

However, I fully agree with your comments on wind power. I think for those who have land and available space, wind is a very innocuous form of energy, with very little risk of doing much environmental harm. Everyone who builds a windmill is more or less acting individually to save the environment. It is my opinion that many people living 400 miles from the largest population center do not need to be there. However if they are there, and they use windpower (and not too many batteries and if they dispose properly of old batteries) they are probably doing good. I suspect, but do not know, that many of them are doing significant environmental damage. Many posters on this website point out - correctly, I think, that an urban life style can be managed to have the smallest environmental impact.

It also goes without saying that everyone who conserves is doing good, wherever and however they do it.

I do object on some level to the notion that only where energy is concerned do we have to address issues of "short term" profit and the whole nine yards of anti-corporate stuff that is so popular. The solution to the global climate crisis, if such a solution is even remotely possible, cannot depend on all sorts of private agendas about capitalism, socialism, and the nature of investment. There frankly isn't time for that. We have at best a few decades, maybe much less. My point is that we must be rational if we are to have any decent shot at survival. If we are not rational, we will die.

A necessary determination is the determination that I often advertise and refer to here: An attempt to measure the external costs of energy in an objective way. This is an essential step, because a rational decision making process depends very much on having information from which to reason.

The fact is that people make their energy decisions - and it's not all big bad corporations and big bad governments - on an entirely emotional basis. Most of us get into cars. I know I do. I also know that most of us have a vague sense that this is a highly destructive thing to do, but we don't know how to stop.. Most people like renewable energy in theory; and if you ask them, they almost always express positive impressions. But just as they don't stop driving cars, they really don't buy many renewable energy devices except maybe calculators and the like.

I note that many types of industries are "short term" profit industries, including of course, the computer industry. Many other essentials are provided by large corporate entities, including food, much of which is manufactured by companies that are also in the cigarette business. Nobody carries on about food the way they do about energy. Most people don't advocate home farming, and cow ownership because Kraft Foods is a business unit of Phillip Morris and because Velveeta contains food coloring. If they did so, it would probably result in disaster, as one might have seen should one ever have been to India.

There are some things that are done better and more safely on a larger scale. In the case of delivering base load electrical energy, the matter is much safer than it would be if, say, people built millions of diesel engines to generate their own power, or each established their own coal (or wood) fired generators. In fact, there is historical precedent for this sort of disaster as in the London smog events in 1952, during which thousands of people dropped dead in the streets as the result of point source (coal based) heating. In fact the safest procedure for delivering electricity is the vast scale forms, specifically nuclear energy, hydroelectric energy, and - we all should be enthusiastic for this by the way, wind energy. This does involve large scale investment - and on some level - collective effort. It is, in this case, the safest way to do things.

[jpak]

11. LOL!!! Computer chips and Si-PV materials are very different critters

The energy payback period of various PV technologies varies from 1-4 years....

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1119

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:F4Dv7WL037MJ:www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf+photovoltaics+energy+payback&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11&ie=UTF-8

http://www.fz-juelich.de/scientific-report-2004/index.php?item=20&lang=en

as PV modules have service lives of ~40 years, they have very large positive net energy ratios.

Global production of PV was >1700 MW last year - how many deaths were associated with this????

None?????

Achievement of a Super Green (PV) Factory (Sharp, Japan)

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:_J1dmlvjvssJ:sharp-world.com/corporate/eco/csr_report/2005pdf/sharp20e.pdf+industrial+accidents+photovoltaic+factory+2005&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8

Nice try though!!!!!!

:rofl:

[NNadir]

12. Silicon is still an element in the periodic table.

It's chemistry is pretty well understood.

So long as solar PV remains below a single exajoule - and essentially is useless in the current crisis - it will kill few people. This is hardly surprising however.

1700 MWe, a unit of power and not energy, (peak no less) is next to nothing. Thus solar PV escapes environmental notice on the grounds it a trivial capacity.

[jpak]

13. Silicon is an element in the Periodic Table?????

As opposed to elements that aren't in the Periodic Table????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Manufacture of Si-PV cells is very much different from the manufacture of integrated chips - PV cells do not require high purity Si, or the extensive cleaning and etching used to produce ICs.

And any claims that these processes or products are any way similar are false....

[NNadir]

15. Every hear of epitaxy?

Here's one solar cell process among many:

http://www.imec.be/wwwinter/energy/advanced_multi_and_epi.shtml

Here's another using SF₆, the persistent and potent greenhouse gas commonly produced industrially today, from the folks at BP Solar:

http://www.imec.be/wwwinter/energy/advanced_multi_and_epi.shtml

The atmospheric lifetime of SF₆ is over 3000 years and its global warming potential is over 20,000 times larger with respect to carbon dioxide (Carbon dioxide = 1):

http://www.cast.crc.org.au/Documents/Media%20Releases/AM-cover%20Award%20Media%20Release.pdf

http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/currentactivities/othergases.htm

This is only part of the story.

I have previously referenced this website that explores the environmental impact of solar cell production and certainly does not pretend that it is zero, although - even with a battery, it manages to be better than a diesel generator after some period of years (it better be better than a diesel, no?):

http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/e2000-15.pdf

In appendix B2, some scale of the chlorosilanes and tetrachlorosilane lost is given: It has improved from 72% lost to only 18% lost.

It is always possible to make extravagant claims about small scale technologies since they are small in scale. The scale up would have more obvious consequences. However the point is moot. The solar cell industry remains a minor player on the world stage, a game of hype more than practice.

I note that the energy produced by solar PV cells is much less than a single exajoule. As indicated before, it is therefore relatively easy to pretend that environmental impact of this chemistry does not exist. Not so. Were the solar PV industry a significant player on the world stage - and it still isn't - the environmental impact of it would be correspondingly larger. There is no such thing as a free lunch, although certainly there are many people who are comforted by pretending otherwise.

[jpak]

17. LOLOLOL!!!!

I've worked with SF6 - it is a common tracer in oceanographic and hydrological work.

There are NO data in the links about releases of SF6 from PV manufacture - none - nice try though!!!!

Ever heard of CFC-114????

Really????

DIDN'T THINK SO!!!!!

It's released by the fucking hundreds tons each year from US uranium enrichment plants (88% of US and 14% of global emissions).

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Uranium-Harms-Ozone-Layer.htm

It has an atmospheric half-life of 300 years and radiative forcing potential of 6300-9300...and it destroys stratospheric ozone.

http://www.afeas.org/greenhouse_gases.html

But we'll just ignore that little inconvenient fact for a moment....

The authors of the PV impact paper concluded that PV was an "environmentally benign option for improving living conditions in rural areas without electric ty supply" and would yield a ~490 kg/yr reduction in GHG emissions relative to kerosene lamps...

As for the "loss" chlorosilanes etc in PV manufacturing - the assertion that this represents emissions to the environment is just plain fucking horse shit. That reference was to the efficiency of the producing electronic grade Si from metallurgical grade Si - the "loss" was to the process - not to the environment.

...so much for the "millions dead" by PV argument....

:rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NNadir]

19. There is a huge difference between "tracer" work and industrial work.

I thought everybody knew that.

The claim that tracer work gives expertise in the area of industrial work is illustrative of a poor comprehension of issues. I have seen this claim before, and I find highly illustrative. Handling a microscope slide that happens to have a few micrograms of uranium, for instance, confers no special knowledge about nuclear processing on a ton scale. None whatsoever. Filling a micropipet with 10 microliters of a tritiated nucleoside requires no understanding of the nuclear chemistry involved in the treatment of fission products and actinides. None whatsoever. A tracer experiment using sulfur hexafluoride neither confers nor requires and understanding even on a basic level of industrial processes in which the compound is used or for that matter, atmospheric chemistry. Absolutely none.

The assertion to the contrary is purely absurd on its face.

It is easy to rely on this kind of confusion in the case where solar PV energy is a trivial form of energy, which of course, it is. It is an example of what I call the "Nader syndrome." In 2000 people felt the compulsion to vote for Ralph Nader in spite of his near insanity precisely because they knew his Presidency would not come to pass. They also made huge and frankly fantastic claims about his nobility - claims that would not and could not ever be tested and therefore were essentially meaningless. It will never be known the extent to which this pixilated and self absorbed attitude resulted in the failure to seat the President-elected Gore, who by all evidence would have had an outstanding opportunity to have been an outstanding President. He would, in fact, have been the ideal man for these horrible times. Thus the effect or relying on "Ralph Nader" to create a higher probability of a liberal society had the exact opposite effect: It lead to the near destruction of the American democracy in an orgy of dogmatic excess, the likes of which the United States has seldom experienced.

The claims about the benign nature of solar PV cell manufacturing are probably similar. The processes by which solar PV energy will become a significant energy probably will never actually come to pass, certainly not in time to displace fossil fuels or the much more benign nuclear energy. Thus one can assert whatever one wishes to assert without having the question tested under realistic conditions.

Here is an add for a 21 "watt" solar cell:

http://www.affordable-solar.com/unisolar-us21-21-watt-solar-panel.html

This cell weighs 6.6 pounds, shipping weight or roughly 3 kilograms. The cell can be expected to operate at 20-30% loading capacity because of the existence of night and situations of diffuse light, so lets say that it will produce 8 watts of continuous power. Thus ignoring the need for batteries, this ad, one of the first to pop up when one "googles" "solar panel weight Megawatts" suggests that to produce 1 terawatt of electricity, one is required to handle 375 billion metric tons of mass and this for the finished product. (Note that 1 terawatt of power is enough to produce about 32 exajoules of energy at continuous output - 100% capacity loading - roughly comparable to the worldwide primary energy output of nuclear energy.) The greenhouse gases involved in even shipping this amount of mass is enormous - and we haven't even scratched the surface of the manufacturing cost, which is even greater. I note that for comparison purposes, the amount of spent nuclear fuel produced for 50 years of energy production via nuclear means, on an exajoule scale is expected to reach 75,000 metric tons, a scale that is almost vanishingly smaller.

I note that any (desperate) representation that uranium processing - and let's be frank, it's really nonsense in any case - is responsible for ozone depletion or, for that matter the bulk of CFC-114 pollution, represents similar confusion about the nature of mass balance and industrial processes, and, again, a complete lack of understanding of risk/benefit analysis. The energy density of uranium is vastly higher than solar PV energy, which is obvious to anyone who understands anything at all about energy.

But again, the point is moot.

No one would really object to solar PV energy becoming a significant form of energy, because, as I frequently point out, it is superior in any case to even the best of the fossil fuels, which is natural gas, natural gas being, in light of global climate change, an unacceptably dangerous form of energy. In fact, solar PV, were it a significant form of energy would be well suited to meeting peak load capacity and displacing the natural gas now used for peak power generation. This would be an attractive outcome, but I strongly object to anyone claiming - in a time of global climate catastrophe - that what is attractive is also realistic.

In spite of the vast popular enthusiastic press for it, stretching over 50 years, solar PV energy has not produced energy on a scale approaching either nuclear energy or natural gas, never mind coal and oil. Thus far it has mostly been talk and empty promises, decade after decade. In 2003, natural gas produced over 100 exajoules of primary energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee3.xls

The entire renewable industry, including biomass, garbage burning, solar PV, geothermal etc (but excluding hydroelectric) was 1.1 exajoules. (I note that the solar PV industry is a trivial part of this production.) http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

When the renewable industry is in a position to produce as much energy as even the least dangerous of fossil fuels, natural gas, it will be worth regarding seriously as an option. Under these circumstances the true external cost will be known and measurable. But that event, sadly, is not likely in the lifetime of anyone reading this. Thus it is wrong to pretend that the problem of global climate change is treatable through its agency.

[jpak]

20. I suppose that claiming to invent a (fake) molten salt breeder reactor

and controlling one's radio-iodine contamination (achieved through sloppy lab technique) by ingesting iodized table salt (which is physiologically impossible) makes one an "resident expert".

Can you say "charlatan"...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Furthermore...

One does not use uranyl acetate on optical "microscope slides" as it is transparent. One uses uranyl acetate for transmission electron microscopy. TEM scopes don't use "microscope slides". Instead thin sectioned stained samples are mounted on small (mm sized) Formvar coated copper grids. Of course one would have to have hands-on experience with TEM to understand this...

:rofl:

But one DOES have to understand nuclear physics and chemistry to properly use radioisotopes - and this allows one to rightly *LOL* at the absurd rantings of charlatans who try to pull the wool over people's eyes with pseudo-intellectual pseudoscience bullshit and poppycock. And hands-on experience with SF6 does make one qualified to criticize those who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

:rofl:

Ralph Nader - OOOOOoooooo - the Bogeyman - OOOOooooooo

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What's a Ex-O-Jewel????? Can you make nucular power plants out of it without using billions of metric tons of mass to produce a Terror-watt of electricity??????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

and finally, nucular power, like, you know, sucks man...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



:

[NNadir]

21. I simply repeat the assertion that tracer work confers no special ability.

I don't really care about microscope technique. It is not my area of expertise, and it has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion of nuclear energy, as can be clearly read in my last post. I have never prepared a microscope slide, nor do I have any desire to do so.

I am not a biologist. But being a biologist has no bearing, again, on the subject of sulfur hexaflouride chemistry, the chemistry of the actinides, or for that matter, neutron diffusion theory.

I note again, that handling of tiny droplets of uranium solutions obviously doesn't confer any knowledge whatsoever of nuclear physics as can clearly be recognized from the nature of some comments by biologists on the subject.

My expertise in nuclear matters can be evaluated by all who read what I write, of course. They are self evident and I make no apologies for any of my remarks on this, or any other, subject. Quite naturally, people view my remarks through the prisms of their own biases and their own level of understanding, but certainly such an outcome is not unique to me. Some people are quite competent as garnering my meaning, others are far less so. In general I am very proud of the many positive responses I have received for my comments on this and other subjects and am well satisfied that the vast majority my correspondents regard my views with an understanding of my level of knowledge. I am satisfied that I have earned that respect and am untroubled by the few negative remarks I routinely get from one or two people, as I can judge their quality.

In any case, my statement that tracer work does not confer knowledge of industrial practice or the nature of industrial environmental impact stands and is correct.

I note also that repeatedly mocking the word "exajoule," an international physical unit, does not substitute for showing the that solar PV energy has ever annually produced such a quantity of energy, any more than saying "EVIL-LOO-SHUN" changes the history of life. The amount of energy produced by solar PV energy - trivial in terms of exajoules - is clear and unambiguous, as is world energy demand, which is also well known, clear and unambiguous. The world demand is 440 exajoules. Neither of these facts, solar PV production or world energy demand, can be escaped. The conclusion therefore remains that renewable energy is insufficient and ill prepared to address the crisis of global climate change. If and when that changes, we will all be pleased, but in the face of the emergency I am not dissuaded in any way from pointing out that the current crisis cannot be solved by fantasy and wishful thinking.

[htuttle]

14. An issue that both Nuclear and PV Solar Cell advocates need to address...

...is the economics of enabling all the countries in the world to be able to afford to use these cleaner methods of power generation instead of petroleum. Here in the US, we are wealthy enough as a society to be able to consider a whole wide array of power generation methods. But neither nuclear plants nor widespread/main power PV cell usage are anywhere near affordable for much of the Earth's population as they currently exist. And if they can't afford it, they'll use something else, like coal, instead of doing without energy at all.

Are the wealthy countries of the world willing to fund nuclear power plant production or subsidize PV Cell installation world wide? I highly doubt it, since most of the time we aren't even that willing to help feed them or help them get drinking water. So how would we stop them from using cheaper but much dirtier methods of generating power? By force?

I think there are solutions that involve both governance issues and more accessible technology. For nuclear power, I think that a multinational approach is a good one. The same way that South American countries have cooperated to build and run large hydroelectric plants (putting aside the environmental damage they caused for now), nuclear plants could be built the same way. We can't rely on corporations to build those plants for profit, since the people there are poor. There's not much money to be made (or not as much as there is in more industrialized countries).

Nationalized power plants for urban centers make a lot of sense in much of the world. That would mean, of course, that we as the industrialized west would have to not try to prevent them from building these plants. Currently, it seems that you have to pay your vig to the Bush mob first (perhaps by contracting out the work to one of their 'associates') to be allowed to do this in peace. This obviously has to change.

Regarding photovoltaic cells, they are nifty, especially for very small scale requirements. But they are still very expensive to someone that only makes a few dollars per week (if that). It doesn't matter what the ROI is, if you don't have the 'I' to begin with. They're going to cook their dinner over a wood or coal fire (or in urban areas, using electricity generated by coal) when they get home at night instead.

For solar, I'd suggest looking at lower tech solar generation methods, such as Stirling collectors, especially for small scale or remote power generation. Any decent group of machinists (or even skilled auto mechanics) can build and maintain one if given the (simple) design, and they are made from commonly available materials instead of often expensive minerals that require high tech processing. THAT is something that can provide electricity (along with wind generation) to poverty stricken remote villages and isolated farm communities so they won't have to burn coal. Every country that wanted to could easily build them with resources they probably already have.

Stirling collector generators are even being looked at by NASA for deep space missions. Apparently, they look like they'd be effective at much farther distances from the Sun than current PV cells, and are much cheaper than nuclear (RTG) power systems.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/dynamicpower/doc/stirling_deepsolar.html

No matter how efficient a power generation method is, or how safe and productive it is, if most of the world can't afford to get one, they'll use something cheaper and dirtier. There aren't many people in this world who wouldn't start a wood or coal fire for environmental reasons to keep themselves warm if they had to. Real world energy solutions have to involve local economic issues, or they aren't real world solutions at all.

[jpak]

9. How do nucular accidents remove pollutants from the environment????

That's just crazy talk...

:rofl:

[NNadir]

16. You have incorrectly interpreted my remarks.

Nuclear operations only release important amounts of pollutants under unusual operations. Except in rare failure modes, they generally release very few pollutants.

Fossil fuel plants, as is widely known, produce pollutants during normal operations, continuously, most importantly carbon dioxide, but also many other dangerous compounds.

In terms of loss of life, the sum total of nuclear energy is tiny compared to any other form of energy of comparable size. On an injury per exajoule scale it is tiny compared to all other forms of energy.

Fatal nuclear accidents are extremely rare. In tens of thousands of reactor years of commercial reactor operations, there has been only one such accident, in a rarely used type of reactor that is no longer being built.

Fossil fuel accidents, and death by pollution are constant, though unremarked, and the effects of the global climate change catastrophe are about to make it much larger.

Here is a case of a fossil fuel accident just last month that was one in a series of such on-going tragedies, a tragedy that will get no comment whatsoever from individuals who imagine that nuclear energy is more dangerous than its alternatives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=43122&mesg_id=43122

I have been attempting to generate some ethical interest in this case, but to no avail. People find it boring, even though many feign concern about the far more rare nuclear accidents.

It is my contention that ignoring these people is a moral choice as much as a technical misrepresentation of the nature of affairs.

[megatherium]

2. I recall an old episode of X-Files, when agents Mulder and Fox

investigate a case involving a disgusting creature (resembling a humanoid lamprey) that apparently found its way from a cargo ship (from Ukraine) to a sewer system in New Jersey. The episode ends with Mulder at the computer writing his report, concluding with the observation that while Man is destroying many species, he is also creating new species.

[phantom power]

3. If we don't breed superheros, China, India and Iran surely will...

America cannot allow a superhero gap!

[jpak]

18. Ya know, this whole thread is premised on a pack of lies

Who are the antinuclear "nuts" that believe that....

"nuclear accidents only cause three headed animals, like the cows and sheep now found in Pennsylvannia (sic) in wide numbers as a result of Three Mile Island, and giant insects the size of Sherman tanks, and even small cruise liners, like the giant centipedes that destroyed Kiev and some cities in Belarus, including Minsk, after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Other people focus on the activation of giant mutated prehistoric creatures like Godzilla, Gamera, and Rodan that resulted from the use of nuclear power in Japan."

They don't exist.

Laughable straw men, name calling and lies...

What a crock 'o shite....