For Nuclear Power: a) Nuclear power is "unlimited" — agree: in the limited sense allowed by De of "for the next couple hundred years". b) Nuclear power is "carbon neutral" — agree: there are some emissions due to all the activities involved in nuclear power production that use fossil fuels for transportation or for electricity generation, but they should be negligible. c) Nuclear power is "safe" — disagree: no reason why it shouldn't in principle, but in practice safety is the first victim of efficiency and the risks involved in a nuclear accident are too large. c1) Nuclear power is "safer to build than to import" — disagree: this makes no sense to me. d) Nuclear power can replace almost every application of fossil power — agree: using nuclear energy to power synthetic fuel production [though scaling synthetic fuel production to the current output of oil refineries would have problems of its own]. d1) Nuclear power can provide a reliable energy baseline &mdash: strongly agree: it already does. e) Nuclear power is more cost-effective than renewables &mdash: strongly disagree: one word, "externalities"; also, as Jerome tirelessly points out, fuel-based power plants appear cheaper only because the cost of the fuel is pushed into the future. f) New fission reactors solve the problems of "old, bad" designs &mdash: agree: but that doesn't mean they don't have [unknown or underestimated] problems of their own (see "safety" above). g) New developments are just around the corner that will make nuclear energy even more efficient and safe — disagree: this must be taken on faith. I do have a problem with De putting fussion in the same category as fission. h) Just because incompentent nations or companies have built lousy plants doesn't mean that nuclear power cannot be managed properly — agree, but incompetence and mismanagement cannot be discounted, so I don't see how this proves anything. i) There is no reason to fear nuclear accidents or technology more than other industrial process or externalised cost — disagree strongly, nuclear accidents have the potential for greater damage, for longer time, than other modes of energy production. j) The nuclear industry has been held back over the last 20 years by unfair fear, prejudice and activism — disagree strongly, I think the political opposition to nuclear power is nor unfair. A) The energy and climate situation is dire and some urgent remedial action is needed — agree strongly, but concluding that nuclear energy is necessary is a non-sequitur. B) Nuclear energy is the only practical alternative to fossil fuels — disagree strongly C) Opponents of nuclear energy are scientifically illiterate, superstitious or ideologically biased — disagree strongly though it is dismaying that many people cannot or will not discuss the technical details of nuclear energy D) Quality of life is strongly correlated with per capita power consumption — strongly agree, but again jumping from this to the need for nuclear power is a non-sequitur. E) We have reason to be optimistic about steady and often radical improvements in technology — disagree I used to be a believer in progress and rationality, but I am increasingly sceptical.
Conclusion: I agree with most of the premises, but not with the conclusions, which means either I am inconsistent or the pro-nuke arguments are mostly fallacious.
Against nuclear power: a) Nuclear power is not safe — agree: given the devastating nature of accidents, they cannot be made unlikely enough. a1) Nuclear waste management is an unsolved problem and waste is toxic "forever" — disagree: my intuition is that nuclear waste management should not be any harder than any other kind of waste management. a2) Uranium mining is associated with poor worker safety, contamination of water sources, etc — agree, but this is an argument against mining, not against nuclear power. a3) Safety is sacrificed to efficiency, accidents happen and then they are covered up — agree but this is not specific to nuclear power a4) No private insurer will insure a nuclear plant; if nuclear power were safe it would be possible to insure it — agree it is probably true that nuclear accidents are too costly even if they are very unlikely, but what are other activities that cannot be insured privately? a5) Nuclear power is a stalking horse for the nuclear weapons industry — agree but this is again not a problem with nuclear power, but with the lack of political commitment for nuclear nonproliferation, or (in the case of depleted uranium) the callousness of the military industrial complex. b) The public does not trust the reassurances of nuclear scientists and industry spokespeople, and rightly so — agree, but although one should not trust what the industry says about itself, I don't think it's "right" that the public won't trust anything nuclear scientists say in favour of nuclear power. At least they know what they're talking about. c) Uranium mining is a politically dirty business — agree, but again this is not an argument against nuclear power but against mining. Uranium mining in Canada and Australia is presumably not on the same league as uranium mining in Niger. d) Nuclear power is centralised, high/heavy technology, difficult to understand, and makes power consumers into helpless clients — agree, but all infrastructure is centralised, as is all heavy industry. You'd be hard pressed to find an average consumer who understands how the products they consume work... This is not an argument specifically against nuclear power. e) Nuclear power is coupled to national security, nonproliferation, and other risks which inspire or require rigorous security which is inherently secretive and undemocratic — disagree there is nothing inherently secretive and undemocratic about security: if your security systems require secrecy they are not secure. This is also not an argument against nuclear power but against security, which is absurd. f) Radiation is undetectable without specialized equipment and people cannot tell if they are being exposed, having to rely on the word of (untrusted) authorities — agree, but tell me how this is different from most chemical or biological contamination. g) The health effects of radiation are insidious, as they can take years to develop and may include genetic damage which does not become visible until gestation and birth of children — agree, but again not different from chemical contamination or even natural radioactivity like radon from building materials. f) Uranium is no more an infinite resource than fossil fuel — agree, but will not run out of it within the life of a nuclear power plant built today. g) Nuclear power is not cost-effective and benefits from hidden subsidies — agree g1) Old nuclear plants are very expensive to repurpose of clean up — agree, but is this enough to make nuclear power uneconomical? g2) Nuclear power plants are costly to build, require expert personnel to operate, and have high complexity and high failure costs, all of which is expensive — agree but so what? h) Simple, cheaper, cleaner and less scary options than nuclear power include conservation, renewable energy and localised energy production — strongly agree i) Nuclear power is not a nimble solution for urgent problems (such as climate change or peak oil) as it takes 10 to 15 years to bring a nuclear power plant online. — agree but this says nothing of the desirability of building nuclear power plants for the medium term. j) Public protests have not been a decisive factor in holding nuclear power back, but rather inadequate return on investment and unmanageable risks — agree k) New miracle technologies either fail to deliver on their promises or incur significant externalities — agree same comment on "progress" as above. A) The infinite growth predicated by economics is a myth, it is environmentally and socially unsustainable and does not guarantee progress — strongly agree but what does this have to do with nuclear power? B) It is not physically possible for everyone on earth to lead a first-world lifestyle — strongly agree (ditto) C) Nuclear weapons are utterly morally wrong — strongly agree but we're talking about energy, not weapons. D) promises of technological miracles are a case of hubris and carry hidden costs — agree but I am not asking for miracles. E) anarchism/libertarianism: E1) Authority should be resisted, and large centralised governments or corporations mistrusted — strongly agree but with transparency it should be possible to carry out large-scale projects if they are needed. E2) community/grassroots efforts and local organisation and provision of services should be more highly valued — strongly agree E3) government may fall, or policies change, leaving nuclear plants in the wrong hands — agree but like many other arguments above this seems to advocate inaction through paranoia. F) a decent lifestyle for the majority of people could be attained with common sense, reasonable frugality and fairness — agree strongly: I note that "quality of life is not correlated with energy use" only given a substantial reconfiguration of our societies, and even then for a given organization more energy will lead to a higher standard of living.
Conclusion: I again agree with most of the premises, but I disagree on the connection that is made to the nuclear debate. After going through this exercise I see too much ideology and too little reasoning on both sides. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
E) We have reason to be optimistic about steady and often radical improvements in technology -- disagree I used to be a believer in progress and rationality, but I am increasingly sceptical.
what does "rationality" have to do with "progress"?
I am not alone!!!
Ah.. and by evolution we mean change..evolution nowadays means anything the speaker want it to mean...so our group decided to change it...in any case youa re welcomed to the club :)
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
I think we will be .. roughly three...maybe four if you count children...:)
Even this weekend I brought up the argument that certainly the Netherlands are in a desperate need of re-learning the lessons of Erasmus, Voltaire and even Alexis de Tockqueville. (I dubbed it "Ontlichting" in Dutch, which would become Unlightenment in English...)
I can't grasp exactly by what you mean with the "Enlightenment project" but I've an inkling there's a lot of common ground here. This is a subject for a different diary, of course, but you did pick my interest.
..and maye one day everybody would see enlightenment as anthropologists do.. as a wonderful spark in our cultural history...a brilliant generation of myths and narratives that transformed our humanity for ever...as only the myths can do...as only the genius can do...for a brief period of time....for a brief period of time.. west culture was worthy...
If only....if only...but we are a minority now, Nomad.. a minority
I can't help but wonder: in his own days, Voltaire and those who read and agreed with him were similarly a minority compared to the rest of the population. Set in the aristocratic power structure, the well-read and thinkers formed the elite that also had the largest leverage on power.
Today, the difference is that education is relatively accessible for more people and the decision making is in the hands of a significant larger amount of people. Yet those capable to learn about Voltaire (and others) don't do so in detail, except those who do so voluntarily or the (real) minority who study him.
People who learn about Voltaire - and I sound perfectly snobbish saying this - and those capable to understand Voltaire will remain a minority for a long, long time, if not always. The trouble of today is that Voltaire and other free-thinkers no longer reaches that minority where it seems to really matter.
f) Radiation is undetectable without specialized equipment and people cannot tell if they are being exposed, having to rely on the word of (untrusted) authorities -- agree, but tell me how this is different from most chemical or biological contamination.
THE accessory to be seen with...serious street cred... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
B) It is not physically possible for everyone on earth to lead a first-world lifestyle -- strongly agree (ditto)
Please sketch a physical argument for this proposition regarding a physical possibility. For this to be interesting, the question can't require the ability to drive SUVs and get energy from petroleum, but must instead require having goods and services thats people would consider to be of a value equal to or greater than those in a (let's make it "a wealthy") first-world lifestyle.
Sub-questions to consider: This lifestyle requires -- -- How many watts for illumination? ---- For heating? ---- For cooling? ---- For transportation? ---- Etc. -- How many square meters of 30% efficient photovoltaic cells? -- How much mass of which elements, in what form? ---- For housing? ---- For vehicles? ---- Etc. -- How much energy to make these things (no, not with today's crappy technology, we're talking physical possibility here).
I think I'd trade what I have for 1 kilowatt of power (time average) and 10 tons of stuff made from rock and air, if these resources were used really well. The kilowatt requires about 20 m2 of photovoltaics. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
I will read it now...:)
Furthermore, to substitute coal, nuclear and the reduction in oil with renewables.
Is it possible to change from nuclear, coal, gas and oil to biofuels, wind, solar, hydro and tidal in 15 year?
I think we would all love to do it...but even with the maximum investment and effort.. could we do it?
My answer is no...from there all the points of the debate become less relevant...
otehr than.. what would you prefer to phase out first in particular country coal, oil or nuclear?
You know my answer. First renewable to phase out coal...unfortuantely as I see things going.. if we are lucky we will do not increase nuclear and coal power generation and wind and solar would take the extra energy needs of a society with more hybrid cars where the use of oil diminishes. And even that will be very difficult to accomplish. I would be happy with that....but I think China as the US are going to use coal...
Anyway, here are my replies:
Pro-nuke claims a) disagree b) disagree (shall write a diary on this) c) strongly disagree c1) strongly disagree d) disagree d1) what is "reliable"? Depending on the definition, agree/disagree e) agree (PV, wave, tide) - disagree (geothermal) - strongly disagree (wind) f) disagree (shall write a diary on this); if new problems replacing old ones is oncluded, strongly disagree g) strongly disagree (and I'm for fusion research!) h) A hard one. My trouble with this argument is valid even if some governments can maintain nuclear energy safe. Let's settle for disagree. i) Same as above. j) strongly disagree
Pro-nuke premises: A) Well yes agree, but strongly disagree that nuclear can be a solution even ignoring all else B) strongly disagree C) disagree/strongly disagree (two alternatives in this point!) D) disagree E) strongly disagree (and I'm NOT against high-tech, research and pro-pastoral-life)
Anti-nuke claims: a) strongly agree
Anti-nuke premises: A) strongly agree B) strongly agree C) strongly agree D) agree, though with the qualification that often technological miralces do come but do so with 'side effects' matching or outpacing the hoped-for positives E) Only in part in my case
Conclusion: while premises are not always the same, I am an extremist nuclear sceptic (should volunteer with Robin Wood for a train blocking action during the next CASTOR transport?...), even though I don't reject all pro-nuke arguments like a raving lunatic (maybe the ANSWER crowd should give the megaphone to someone else). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
proving a security risk
Not even the "wild" protesters (say idiots who throw a metal anchor over the catenary the day before, which can then be hit by a regular express train) can cause a spill, you'd need bombs or a deep fall for that.
Protests by "public" groups like Robin Wood et al took precautions. Serious blocks (say, a couple of guys concreted to a cavement in the trackbed) were preceded by groups of people who warn the oncoming train (which travels with low speed anyway, BTW).
(There is a known-to-all coreography to such protests which would make some joke about German stereotypes.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Also, do you find it surprising in this context that the nuclear industry and even the government would seek to keep the existence of these transports secret so that tree-huggers cannot sabotage them?
Give me a break. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
(And I repeat, the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Do you chain yourself to sulfuric acid tankers to demonstrate that if terrorist wanted they could cause serious contamination? Do you steal biohazardous waste from hospitals and spread it in children's playgrounds to demonstrate the fundamental unsafety of modern medicine? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Regarding the acid tankers, there have indeed been Greenpeace trespassings to closed chemical plants to prove a point.
Regarding the second, you use a false rhetorical analogy again. I repeat: blocking efforts are blocking efforts, none of them is capable to cause a spill, that's what terrorists could do if they wanted. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On the second, you saw me denounce it, and separate it from public protesters.
On the first, no no CASTOR can be hurt by a simple derailment, and you saw me explain that serious blockades by public protesters were preceded by warning groups. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Maybe the coverage you saw of these German protests was just as sensationalist/biased/lacking in context as the US/UK coverage of the French 'riots' last year. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On this specifically: said security arrangements were in place before the blocking efforts, and couldn't stave them off. So if you understand, why the opposed rhetorical question? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Could you run a railway if there were a determined group of SUV drivers ready to lie on the track in front of every train? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
As for the second, of course not - question is which of these protests gains sufficient number of devoted supporters. (BTW, in Greece, private bus and lorry drivers did in fact protested against the upgrade of the Athens-Thessaloniki railway by leaving old buses/lorries in crossings.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That's the kind of protest that leads me to forget all solidarity with bus and lorry drivers.
Hey, how about we get someone to sneak into a reactor core and get a lethal dose of radiation to demonstrate that nuclear power is deadly? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
A question. How far should civil disobedience go before it is punished mildly, severely? Apply this to protesters who you disagree with e.g. anti-abortion activists. Is putting glue in the locks of clinics ok, is blocking the entrance of clinics ok, is harassing women entering the clinics ok, how about employees...? Arguing that such practices were equivalent to the mob enforcing protection money against businesses, the Clinton Justice Department sought to financially destroy the organizations that promoted the protests and their leaders. Any problems with that? How about applying it to those who organize the CASTOR blockades?
Do you consider a sit-in blockade sabotage?
What about people chaining themselves to the rails?
What about people climbing on the railcars? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
i think they're setting back their cause, don't you?
they look ridiculous!
why don't they write letters to the times instead, or better make some nice flan for their man? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.
(And I repeat, the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.)
And this demonstration is largely irrelevant for demonstrating or disproving the validity of that concern. Unless, that is, you want your government to start treating environmentalist organizations like terrorist organizations?
Yes, they demonstrated a flaw in the security. Yes, this flaw could theoretically be used by a terrorist organization.
But then the argument runs into pretty much the same flaws as the case for torture. Unlike an environmentalist organization, your government's intelligence apparatus will probably be keeping watch on any terrorist organization capable of actually taking action and carrying out a plot like this. If they aren't, you're screwed no matter what, as the terrorists will be able to use any method to achieve their aims.
As for the argument about terrorists crashing planes into nuclear plants... I think all that deserves is a derisive snicker.
g1) nuclear power is not cost-effective, because of all the extra money that protesters can force it to spend on security and slower operations. — agree but let's organize a parachute jump into a wind farm to make wind energy more expensive. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Of course, in light of the other protester motive you haven't addressed, the cost effect very much makes sense. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There is a known-to-all coreography to such protests which would make some joke about German stereotypes
Precedents Preceding the anti-CASTOR protests was a long-running court and protest battle between locals and activists on one hand and the industry and the (federal) state on the other over the designated nuclear waste storage site. On one hand, there were (and are) more than serious doubts about the stability and water-impermeability of the silty ground near the Elbe river. On the other hand, the original site designation was more informed by going for the least resistance: to a sparsely populated area in an area right next to the Iron Curtain. As the years passed, the state repeatedly applied the method of promising an overview or let-up, then some time later presenting a fait accompli. The initial anti-CASTOR protests in fact aimed at preventing the activisation of the facility.
CASTOR containers and transports The security measures, citing terror, technical accident and protest concerns, included and include:
I note that the police operation was provided by the Land [~federal state] and to a lesser part federal organs free-of-charge to the energy giants, thus the first and biggest protests were also with the hope that the Land (Schröder's BTW) will be the weak link who will refuse to further shoulder the costs. (Alas that wasn't to be.)
Both some locals and activists groups also made more serious obstacles: concrete sleepers, tractors, removed rails, people chained to rails. These were/are usually surrounded by a sit-in, preceded by one or more group of protesters who signal to the train, or warning tables planted ahead. Participants of such actions aimed/aim to be arrested and tried (and usually signed/sign statements in advance). Even such blockades are usually removed in minutes to an hour. (The longest blockade was caused by members of the traditional anti-nuclear group Robin Wood, who prepared a concrete cavity in the tracks of a disused line on the rightly guessed route, and chained-concreted the hands of three members into it the night the train came, causing a daylong delay.)
The dangerous "wild" protests Unlike the aforementioned public activist groups, some anonymous idiots applied truly dangerous hit-and-run tactics: obstacles placed without warning groups or tables behind curves, obstacles placed the day before on branchlines, or hours before on mainlines, anchors thrown at catenaries.
These "wild" actions (if they are, see below) were both dangerous and unprofessional. For, they chiefly hit normal trains - and them hard, unlike the slow-moving quatro-secured CASTOR trains. Especially the last: the CASTOR trains with their diesel locos aren't affected by power losses, nor do they have pantographs for the anchors to get struck in and tear down the catenary, while regular train drivers have been hurt by the anchor cable itself.
On the other hand, we cannot know for certain if concrete plates on the rails or a throw-anchor attack is a "wild" anti-CASTOR protest. For, receiving less media attention, but troubling the German and other railways and their workers, such incidents happen with a worrying regularity, and culprits are almost never caught - probably a rather extreme form of teenager prankstery. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
CASTOR containers and transports The security measures, citing terror, technical accident and protest concerns, included and include: 1. The containers themselves: super-stong metallic containers designed to resist all kinds of chemical effects, extreme acceleration/deceleration (they were tested by throwing them out of airplanes, also in train crashes), electricity etc. (Later though, it was found that hard stresses and wear do cause structural damage on them.) 2. They are put in long trains with multiple locomotives which also serve as buffer. The locomotives are diesel-powered thus autonomous (and are fitted with protective gear themselves). 3. The routing of the trains isn't announced in advance, multiple lines are drawn up. 4. Along the possible lines, police checks for any hindrances the day before. 5. When the train comes, all other rail traffic is stopped on the section so that collision is not even possible. To limit the railway's inconvenience and to make the approach less apparent, the train is often routed along sparsely used or disused branchlines (which paradoxically make the protesters' 'job' easier, most major blockades happened in such lines). 6. The train is 'preceded' by a helicopter, which again checks for hindrances. 7. Along the route when the train passes through, policemen are called out to control the area in a half-hour or so, again checking for any hindrances. 8. The train advances at a slow speed. On some critical spots, at walking speed, surrounded by walking policemen.
1. The containers themselves: super-stong metallic containers designed to resist all kinds of chemical effects, extreme acceleration/deceleration (they were tested by throwing them out of airplanes, also in train crashes), electricity etc. (Later though, it was found that hard stresses and wear do cause structural damage on them.) 2. They are put in long trains with multiple locomotives which also serve as buffer. The locomotives are diesel-powered thus autonomous (and are fitted with protective gear themselves). 3. The routing of the trains isn't announced in advance, multiple lines are drawn up. 4. Along the possible lines, police checks for any hindrances the day before. 5. When the train comes, all other rail traffic is stopped on the section so that collision is not even possible. To limit the railway's inconvenience and to make the approach less apparent, the train is often routed along sparsely used or disused branchlines (which paradoxically make the protesters' 'job' easier, most major blockades happened in such lines). 6. The train is 'preceded' by a helicopter, which again checks for hindrances. 7. Along the route when the train passes through, policemen are called out to control the area in a half-hour or so, again checking for any hindrances. 8. The train advances at a slow speed. On some critical spots, at walking speed, surrounded by walking policemen.
And where is the promised ET compass?
To tell you the truth, like I said upthread, after going through the complete list I got a feeling it's just too damn exhausting. At least the political compass was somewhat entertaining. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
