European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Sketching the Playing Field

by DeAnander
Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 12:49:30 AM EST

And in terms of nuclear power... considering that its essentially just an advanced form of hitting a rock with a bigger club. Nah. Let's use scalpels instead.

-- RElland, at DailyKos

OK, with some delay after the Chernobyl preludes by me and DoDo, time at last for me to deliver the first of the diaries I have been promising on nuclear power generation and the reasons why I remain skeptical (to put it mildly) about the benefits of this approach to the twin crunches of Peak Oil and Climate Destabilisation. Since this is a contentious topic, maybe it would be best to begin with a quick reconnoitre of the disputed territory -- a little rough demography of the disputants - and the talking points "each side" (though there are more than two, of course) traditionally upholds. Sometimes it helps to have an approximate agreement about what one is disagreeing about...

The Case for the Defence

The claims made by the various spokespeople for the nuclear industry at this juncture are, in précis:

(a) that nuclear power is "unlimited", i.e. can be maintained or grown for an "indefinite" future (this in practise means "a couple of hundred years");

(b) that nuclear power is carbon-neutral, i.e. does not contribute significantly to greenhouse emissions or climate change and therefore is a "fix" for global warming;

(c) that nuclear power is, nowadays, "safe"... meaning: incidents like TMI (Three Mile Island) and Chernobyl, and sites like Hanford and Sellafield, are "bad old days" stuff, and we can take care of all the problems of waste disposal, leakage of active isotopes, provide fail-secure "walk away" reactors, etc.

(c1) that it's "safer to build than to import" from neighbours with old or substandard nuclear technology

(d) that nuclear power can replace almost every application of fossil power or

(d1) that nuclear power can at least provide a reliable energy baseline

(e) that nuclear power is already more cost effective than renewables and

(f) that new fission reactor designs such as CANDU or pebble bed solve the problems of "old, bad designs" like TMI or Chernobyl and/or

(g) that new developments such "safe breeder reactors" and "fusion reactors" are just around the corner and will make nuclear power really efficient and safe (even though, as we all know, it already is)

(h) Just because some incompetent nations/companies have built lousy plants or mismanaged them (Soviet fast-track crude technology, American privatisation or political corruption) doesn't mean that nuclear power cannot be managed properly by competent and rational government programmes, as in France. (i.e. failures of nuclear power in the past were structural failures of the society, government, or level of expertise or materials, not due to risk factors inherent in the technology).

(i) All industrial technologies are risky, and there is no reason to fear nuclear accidents or pollution more than any other industrial process or "externalised" waste or pollution (much of which can be shown to have caused more premature loss of life over the last 20 years than can be irrefutably ascribed to the nuclear sector).

(j) fission reactor construction, and nuclear development generally, have been unfairly held back over the last 20 years by unfounded public fears, prejudice, and anti-nuke protestors

Further systematic or conceptual, implicit or explicit claims often heard from the industry or its supporters are:

(A) The energy and climate situation is dire and some remedial action is urgently needed;

(B) Nuclear power is the only practical alternative to fossil fuels; or put more vividly, the only alternative to nuclear power is "shivering in the dark", i.e. widespread power-famine. Therefore, opposing the nuclear industry is -- implicitly -- a crime against humanity, as it means obstructing the only possible solution and condemning people to freeze in the dark / die / starve / live like lowly third world peasants;

(C) Therefore it is clear that only stupid people would oppose such an obvious solution; therefore opposition to the nuclear industry must be born of stupidity -- opponents are presumably non-scientists and/or generally ill-educated, and believe a lot of superstitious/cartoony exaggerations about the dangers of radiation. Alternatively they are a lot of "eco-crazies" or "tree huggers" who are ideologically anti-science, anti-progress, and suffer from a sentimental attachment to a wholly fictional happier agrarian/pastoral historical period.

(D) Quality of life is linearly related to amount of energy consumed per person per annum

(E) We have reason to be optimistic about steady and often radical improvements in technology; scientific "miracles" produced by the efforts of academic and/or commercial elites have occurred in the past which produced wonderous returns for consumers, and more of the same can be expected to continue indefinitely until everyone on Earth enjoys a First World lifestyle and/or humanity colonises the solar system, etc. But to reach this Promised Land we will need lots of energy, so we must not permit our energy consumption and production to fall.

I think that about sums it up, but perhaps our local pro-nuclear advocates can add a few more talking points.

The Case for the Prosecution

The claims made by opponents of nuclear plants, on the other side of the fence, can be distilled into this list:

(a) Nuclear power is not safe, because:
- Waste management is an unsolved problem and the waste is intensely toxic effectively forever
- Uranium mining is associated with poor worker safety, contamination of water sources, etc (like coal mining)
- Leaks happen at nuclear plants, safety procedures are not followed, corners are cut, and then coverups are mounted to prevent the public from finding out.
- No private insurer will insure a nuclear plant. If the technology were safe, you could get insurance on it.
- Nuclear plants are a stalking horse for the nuclear weapons industry. The history of DU munitions (a handy way the industry figured out to get rid of some hot waste) is abominable. This tie makes the world less safe all over.

(b) The public does not trust reassurances made by nuclear scientists and industry spokespeople, and rightly so. (More on this failure of trust later).

(c)Uranium mining is not only physically dangerous, but a politically dirty business associated with exploitation of labour, fraudulent dealings with aboriginal people, and all the rest of the typical mining industry profile (i.e. moral odium attaches to it).

(d) Nuclear power is centralised, extremely high/heavy technology, difficult for average people to understand -- and therefore makes power consumers into helpless clients of an authoritarian, secretive industry (with enormous lobbying power for self-perpetuation). In part this is because:
- Nuclear power is tightly coupled to national security risks, proliferation etc. which inspire/require rigorous security measures -- these are inherently secretive and antidemocratic.
- Radiation is invisible, unsmellable, undetectable without expensive equipment (geiger counters, dosimeters, etc) -- average people cannot tell if they are being exposed. They must take the word of (untrusted) authorities.

(e) Health effects of radiation exposure may take many years to develop, and may include genetic damage that does not become visible until gestation or birth of children. As menaces go, it qualifies as "insidious" as well as carrying extreme damage and lethality potential.

(f) Uranium is no more an infinite resource than fossil fuel.

(g) Nuclear power is not cost-effective; no nuclear plant has ever turned a profit, all have been subsidised/socialised (as the saying goes, "No plant has ever been built that burns uranium as efficiently as it burns money."). This muddies and confounds comparisons with alternative technologies that have never been subsidised/socialised to the same extent. Further cost issues are:
- Old nuclear plants are very expensive to repurpose or clean up. Decades go by and they are still eating up scientist and engineer hours: a permanent burden on society.
- Nuclear plants are very costly to build and require many highly trained personnel to operate -- high level of complexity and high failure costs. This = Expensive. Expensive multiplied by ... how many of them would we have to build to replace fossil fuel generating capacity?

(h) Other alternatives look more obvious, cheaper, easier, and less scary: first, conservation; second, reversion to renewable energy sources (wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, "solar tower", biomass, biodigester methane, etc); third, localisation, micropower, smart grids (smart information/routing technology)

(i) In terms of addressing urgent climate/energy issues, nuclear power is not a nimble or timely solution. It takes 10-15 years to bring a new nuke plant on line, whereas we need solutions and ameliorations right now for both fossil fuel scarcity and climate destabilisation.

(j) What has held nuclear power plant construction back for 20 years has not been public protests (10 million people protesting couldn't stop the illegal invasion of Iraq, after all) but the failure of the technology to demonstrate a good return on investment or a manageable risk

(k) New miracle technologies are mostly vaporware, and/or incur significant underplayed "externalities". We've been promised safe breeder reactors and fusion for at least 30 years. Where are they? [Ironically the fission faction in the pronuclear camp has at times made much the same snarky remark and has protested against the diversion of funding into "impractical" fusion research.] Pro-nuke advocates suffer from a sentimental attachment to a wishful-thinking Star Trek or Jetsons cartoon future and are naively optimistic about technology, which they fetishise.

In addition, antinuclear advocates have their own implicit or explicit "larger assumptions" or ideological groundwork which tends to inform the viewpoint of a majority among them. These might include:

(A) skepticism about the Infinite Growth model of economic theory and urgent concern about its impact on various biotic and social infrastructure worldwide; skepticism about capitalism and the profit motive as engines of progress

(B) conviction that it is not physically possible for everyone on Earth to live a First World lifestyle; and further, that it is not possible for First Worlders to go on doing so much longer; for survival as well as for social justice, affluent lifestyles in the industrial West should be considered excessive and some curbing of consumerism/materialism is in order

(C) a conviction of the utter moral wrongness of nuclear weapons; for example the conviction that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a crime against humanity

(D) skepticism about technological hubris and promised "scientific miracles"; a conviction that many of these carry hidden price tags

(E) some degree of libertarian and/or anarchistic tendencies leading to
- a skeptical and resistant stance towards Authority, and a mistrust of centralised government and/or large corporations;
- higher value placed on community/grassroots and local organising and provision of services (devolution, downsizing, decentralisation))
- fear that any government may fall, or policies change at any time, leaving large numbers of nuclear plants in "the wrong hands"

(F) optimism about the intelligence and capacity of the proletariat (vs faith in academic or corporate elites) and the viability of simple, sustainable, and small/medium-scale systems to provide a decent lifestyle for a majority of people; the Promised Land is already here, if we would only exercise some common sense, reasonable frugality, and fairness. Quality of life is not linearly related to amount of energy consumed per person per annum.

Summary Remarks

The usual disclaimers apply: not everyone who is pronuke will agree with every one of the "pro" talking points, and vice versa for the contranuke position; ideological mappings are always fuzzy in detail. But published literature from both points of view seems to bear out the rough clustering in meme-space that I've tried to map here.

In addition to a polarisation of risk assessment and beliefs as detailed above, there is an approximate conventional-political polarisation: support for nuclear power is more common and firmer among people of right and centre-right ideology and/or strong adherence to neoliberal received ideas; it seems to be more common and firmer among high-level technocrats as well. Again this is not a hard and fast correlation, but a perceptible tendency. Firm opposition to nuclear power is more common among people of left/liberal, anti-war, "green," anti-capitalist, sustainable/eco-activist, "hippie" leanings. Support for nuclear power also appears to be significantly stronger among males than females, something I'll return to in a later installment.

I'd be interested to find out how ET readers feel about this meme-map... how it reflects -- or doesn't reflect -- their own experience of the nuclear power debate.

In the next diary (part 2) I'll start to address the problem of security and its social implications, and similar sociopolitical issues around nuke plants and the model of power distribution that they lock us into. Thereafter I'll try to address different talking points from the lists above, not in any particular order, and as time permits. Let the games begin...

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll

Votes: 23
Results	\|	Other Polls

The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Sketching the Playing Field | 147 comments (147 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (4.00 / 5)

IT WAS May 2004 and John Howard was looking for an exit clause. A Federal Government scheme to kickstart Australia's renewable energy industry had proved successful beyond anybody's expectations. Wind, the cheapest and most viable source of renewable energy, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the mandatory renewable energy target.
Giant wind turbines were sprouting all over the country, turbine blade and engine manufacturers were setting up shop, and cash was pouring in from foreign and domestic investors. It seemed Australia was finally tackling its greenhouse gas emissions by getting some clean electricity.
But not everyone was happy with the mandatory target. Leaked minutes from a meeting in the chilly confines of Canberra's political corridors show the Prime Minister had called on some of Australia's biggest contributors to global warming - including the coal and uranium miners Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton - to help the Government devise a way to pull the rug from under the wind industry, but still be seen to be tackling climate change.
Two years on, it has become clear just how deadly that meeting was for wind power. The Government's refusal to extend the mandatory target has left hundreds of renewable energy projects unable to secure contracts. One developer last week cancelled two wind farm proposals worth $550 million, while the future of another $250 million project is in doubt.
The Australian Wind Energy Association says as much as $12 billion worth of proposed wind farms is at risk. On top of that, the Government has tried to kill wind farm projects in Victoria and Western Australia and has called on state governments to sign a development code that would give local councils the power to veto wind projects because of community opposition - something that does not apply to new coalmining ventures.

Sydney Morning Herald

Part of the pro- and contra-nuke debate is muddied by a dirty, knockdown fight by the Old Technology (coal and nuclear) interest groups to suppress, downplay, or muddle news of success in cleaner energy technologies, and to prevent such technologies from getting anything like the subsidies that the extractive industries have enjoyed for over 200 years. One doesn't have to believe in "secret carburetors that run on water" to understand that an established, very large, very politically connected power bloc will fight like hell to prevent any competitors from appearing on the scene.

Rio Tinto, now that's a name to conjure with...

As with many of these dirty little kicking matches, some of the "grassroots groups" may be astroturf and others may be -- unwittingly -- acting as proxies for the power players (much as the US and USSR manipulated and lesser regimes to fight their proxy "bush wars" during the Cold War).

[...]At a time of near unanimous scientific agreement that large greenhouse gas cuts must be made soon to avoid dangerous changes in world weather patterns, how is it that wind has become a dirty word?
Environment groups say it is all tied up with Federal Government reluctance to impose any kind of cost on fossil fuel industries and its desire to sell more uranium to nuclear weapons states such as China and India. They say it is no coincidence that wind - which could in time be a strong, clean competitor to fossil fuels - is being demonised while nuclear power is being promoted as a solution to global warming.[...]
Those who oppose the project are happy with Campbell's intervention. Among them is the discredited British environmentalist David Bellamy. In late 2004, at the height of the campaign against the Bald Hills project, Bellamy visited the area to support the anti-wind cause. "It's the last place on earth you'd contemplate building them," he said during a visit to the South Gippsland town of Foster, paid for and organised by Channel Nine's 60 Minutes. "Think of the damage they are doing, and for no return at all," he said.
Not long before his visit to Australia, Bellamy said man-made global warming was a myth and wind power was not a renewable source of energy.
It is misleading claims such as these and connections with anti-wind campaigners overseas that have raised suspicions about Australia's anti-wind activists. The Australia Institute's Clive Hamilton believes the sprouting of local opposition groups is not entirely spontaneous. "I believe there is a network of anti-wind activists associated with climate change sceptics who are fuelling the fires of local opposition," he says.
Research by the Herald shows that a loose association of anti-wind farm groups that goes by the names of Landscape Guardians or Coastal Guardians relies heavily for its information and campaign tactics on overseas groups that have been linked to the nuclear power industry.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 03:00:56 AM EST

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Nice example of collusion between Dirty Coal and Dirty Nuclear. On the other side of the debate, I note that activists against these too are often also the same. For example, those who strive to stop further strip-mining in the Ruhr area in Germany (battle over Garzweiler-II) and who pursue the monitoring of fine dust emissions and its natural radioactivity near existing coal power plants there.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Big anti (4.00 / 3)

Strangely enough, one of the biggest proponent of wind power in France is Areva, the nuclear energy company, and the biggest investor (and one of the biggest around the world) is EDF, itself the biggest nuclear energy producer on the planet.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big anti (none / 1)

Well, and Shell is big in the wind business and BP in photovoltaics. Part of it is co-optation, part of it is to have a share if the business exists anyway (especially abroad), part of it is that EdF and Areva enjoy a secure near-monopolistic situation - and part of it is that on the French wind energy market, there is little fear of upstarts and local projects becoming dominant.

(BTW, Jérôme, how high is the French wind potential estimated presently? IIRC it is more than 100% of current consumption, but I must have read that about five years ago.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 11:31:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big anti (none / 0)

Similarly in the US, in 1999 then governor G.W. Bush signed into law a requirement that Texas have 2 GW of renewable generation in place by 2009. I'm pretty sure Texas is now the #2 wind producing state in the US behind California. Since you're on theoildrum often, do you know if anyone there has talked about how that came about politically? 2 GW isn't much so it doesn't have to have unique reasoning behind it, but I thought their might be more to it.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 11:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

There are some gems at the end of that SMH article! Some examples of the disinformation being bandied about:

William Hoorweg and his partner, Julie Gray, who own a property about 2.1 kilometres from the nearest proposed turbine, are worried about the prospect of having Australia's biggest wind farm nearby. They will not be able to see the 125-metre turbines from their home but they do not accept the developer's assurances they will not be able to hear them, and they believe the turbines could cause bushfires. They told the Herald the project was a "sham" because when the wind did not blow the developer would have to buy electricity from the grid. Gray also says the turbines will leak electricity. Neither statement is correct [...]
BUSTING THE MYTHS
[...]
MYTH: Wind turbines are fans that dry the atmosphere, break up clouds and chase rain away.
TRUTH: There is no scientific evidence for this. Wind farms only capture energy from existing winds; they do not create wind like a fan.
[...]
MYTH: Wind power is unreliable and can't be stored. Fossil fuels must take up the slack.
TRUTH: There is no effective way to store large amounts of electricity, regardless of whether it comes from coal or wind. All energy technologies have periods when they are not available. These periods are built into the pricing for the technology. If we locate wind farms in different places and don't see them as the total solution, we can manage fluctuations in wind.
MYTH: Wind power becomes less cost-effective the higher its contribution to overall energy demand. Beyond 10 per cent it is uneconomical.
TRUTH: Denmark gets 20 per cent of its electricity from wind power and doesn't seem to have any problems.
Source: Dr Chris Riedy, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney.

Turbines that "leak electricity" -- "cause brushfires" -- "chase rain away"? my my my. great stuff.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: (none / 0)

wow, master blogging...

thanks for this well written round up of the attitudes around this issue, pro and con.

deanander, you seriously rock.

'moral odium'...now there's a phrase!

off to pt 2...

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 03:16:30 AM EST

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 1)

dammit I made a typo in the Poll and it doesn't appear to be editable. apologies to all german-speakers. that should be Jawohl, not Jawoll [there's a brand of sock wool called Jawoll which I was looking at earlier today in a catalog, must be neural print-through].

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 03:23:13 AM EST

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

I could edit it without problems.

I also added links to the other diaries in the series (in a half-sentence inserted into the intro).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

danke DoDo

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 05:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

thanks dodo, for showing such a calm and reasoned set of responses to migeru's scathingly diabolical advocacy!

exemplary....really stalwart

interestingly enough, while nukes can gain a possible convert in some people consequent to non-violent civil disobedience, on me it has the opposite effect, steeling me to follow the example of my musical heroes, jackson browne, bonnie raitt and bruce springsteen in their speaking out at this nightmare, and to go protest if they try pulling this shit around here.

course, with these cursed things, 'around here' is pretty damn relative...

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 06:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

I find your sanctimony tiresome.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 06:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

I don't think either "side" in the debate has a monopoly on self-righteousness or conviction of moral (or some kind of) superiority. melo articulates openly the passionate emotions that many contranuke people feel, just as Starvid's derisive cracks [on another thread] about "eco-crazies" articulate openly the scorn for contranukers that many pronukers feel. those emotions are part of the story, why not air them?

but "sanctimony" to my ear implies hypocrisy -- yet I don't hear much hypocrisy in melo, who seems to be trying hard to live a low-burn-rate life (i.e. not wanting to have cake and eat it too by opposing nukes yet insisting on a high tech, high burn rate, energy-dense lifestyle). I could be wrong but prima facie I see little evidence of hypocrisy.

a question I would ask cher Migeru, is why antinuke protesters, or other people's defence of them, arouse what sounds like heartfelt outrage in you, yourself? are they threatening what you think is the only hope for western civ? or are nuclear transports so insecure that a few protesters at a rail crossing could really cause a national disaster, thus these protesters are in your view taking an insane risk to make their point? I ask -- honestly -- not to provoke but with respect, to clarify.

the story of the protest events that DoDo narrates here seems to me an illustration of the rebellion of the locals against a process perceived as undemocratic or authoritarian. the same objections to protestors are made by every interest group threatened or impeded by protesters. if we are to condemn the people sitting on the train tracks trying to stop the nuclear transports, should we not be condemning the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square or indeed any person who uses theatrical, confrontative street protest as a means of communication? protesters are always accused of increasing conflict, escalating situations, "causing trouble" -- by those who disagree with their aims -- and described as heroes risking their reputations and persons for the common good, by those who share their aims.

one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, in other words. when antinuke protesters actually shoot nuke plant workers (as in some of the abortion clinic protests) or conduct a real, rather than simulated, raid on a plant's security perimeter, then I think we are indeed into the realm of crime rather than theatre... anyway, the merits or demerits of civil disobedience and the locus of responsibility for public risk (is it the protesters at fault or the nuke nexus which exposed the public to the risk in the first place?) could be a whole separate debate thread; but the general feeling that protesting against nuke activities is different, and worse, and less allowable than other kinds of CD [because of the risks involved] I think ties into my Part 2, the connection between nuke power and authoritarianism/repression. [not that I describe you as a repressive authoritarian, cher M, just that for a moment you can like any of us step our of character and into that role in the heat of your outrage on this particular issue].

the issue for us enlightenmentistas, I think, is our struggle to sort out whether nuclear power generation is consonant, as a technological strategy, with larger values (aka ideologies) that we hold dear -- like democracy, sustainability, social justice, glasnost, public health, the strategically optimised expenditure of public monies in a time of energy dearth, etc. we struggle with two burning questions: 1) is it pragmatically sensible, i.e. is it sustainable, is it cost-effective, is it reliable, what hidden costs will come back to bite us, what will be the opportunity cost of investing limited resources in this strategy vs another strategy... and 2) is it ethical -- what costs are shoved off onto nonbeneficiaries, what effect will it have on social norms and values that we wish to preserve?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 07:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

yup that's me, the digital contadino....

i want a biogas generator, so bad...

i hear it takes 5 pigs, and a year-round warm climate, per family.

i still use a chainsaw, car (minimum), and weedeater.

and some of my electricity comes from nukes -boo - bought by enel from neighbouring countries.

but i'm trying....

it's a lot easier than it was in the 60's, because there's MUCH better tv than then (and much worse, you gotta fish), and then wonder of wonders, the web....and all you guys to keep me company as the wind howls through the owly forest, and the snow drifts pile high against the door...

or the august sun crackles and the earth buckles and splits under the blistering heat...

right now it's paradise though, and the wildflowers enchanting in their colourful variety and delicate abundance.

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 07:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

ever done the global footprint test melo? I keep coming out between 2 and 2.5 earths (terrons?), which is depressing... hope to get it down to 1 when I retire and ditch the oversized (for just me) house.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 07:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Melo, how does your plot compare with Italy's population density of 0.51 hectares per person?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 07:23:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

as sanctimony is to religiosity, adherence to one's own views about social and political issues that insults brave people exercising their so-called right to free assembly and speech, be it for reasons of idealogical coherence or protest, has a flavour to my palate of 'i'm ok in my safe little world of numeracy and polymath(ology,ematics, i dunno where to land these last syllables!), and i snipe at those who aren't as knowledgeable as i, and who act in a manner i consider undignified'.

i find this as offensive as you find my defence of that which is 'sanctified' or sacrosanct, namely the protection of the species we are incarnate in.

basic darwin, really...

i have enjoyed your rapier wit, masterful command of english, mindblowingly assiduous dedication to the gentle art of blogging, brilliant timing, and unflagging devotion to making this et the consistently stimulating hangout it is, since its first days.

you are young, and freshly a parent. i have been there, and it is very stressful, as well as life-changingly miraculous.

there was an edge to your dismissal of the antinuke protestors that i found quite low, the kind of edge that i succumb to using when i am infuriated by the facts degondi reveals about italy, or when i react to much american domestic and foreign policy these days.

i feel somewhat sanctimonious on those occasions.

i know as little about so many things, as you know so much, migeru, and i love your presence here.

but just like i do, sometimes you lose the plot, imo, and i can defend myself, just as you can.

i don't have the kind of brain many of you guys here do, and i'm hungrily learning from your kind of wisdom.

however there is another kind of (crazy) wisdom that does hold some things sacred, and tries to reserve scorn and acrimony for those whose ideology seems life-threatening to us, who attack these views.

i will try to keep my sanctimony to a bare minimum, as i hate it in others!

sometimes i don't feel it taking me over till too late...

as for your question about my land;

i have 2.3 hectares, mixed forest and meadows, ranging from almost flat, to very steep.

there used to be about ten people living and working here, now i work it alone.

the people here grew a little wheat and fruits anad veggies, but mostly herded their pigs in the forest, grubbing acorns and chestnuts, and they also dried the chestnuts for milling into meal.

they used no chainsaws!

or bathroom...

it is poor land, suitable for sheep rather than growing crops. the good bottomland down on the valleyfloor is devoted to filling the coffers of rothman's and other tobacco companies.

as i am a vegan, and cityborn to boot, this lifechoice presents plenty of healthy challenge!

there are so many deserted, crumbling farms in italy....

villages that once held 2000, now down to 200.

many starved, many emigrated, many killed by the germans.

the best half of what they grew went to 'local government' (mezzadria), and the old farmers had to become expert at hiding things in order not to starve.

i've heard some very interesting stories from the old-timers who come up here to get some twigs for firestarters, mushrooms or wild chestnuts.

that is once i penetrated the dialect, as many of these folk are illiterate, and never learned to speak (tv) italian!

i spoke up for greenpeace, and i noticed shortly afterwards you started posting nice things about them.

maybe you'll have something happen to you that will cause you to use your human right to protest agin the powers-that-be, and i pray you use it, even if i am not in agreement with your (doubtless highly informed) reasoning.

and i hope no-one finds your sanctimony tiresome!

as for being tired, i am glad to say that one would never know that from your passionate commitment to making this site jump and crackle with energy!

thankyou again for your contributions

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 11:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Chère De, don't Cher Migeru me, ok?

I am not on a side of the debate. Going through your talking points my impression was that they were mostly intellectually dishonest, on both sides. The conclusion is given and then arguments are sought to support it. But that's to be expected because this is a debate oriented towards swaying the public, not towards actually learning about the issue which is what I come to ET for.

Melo's preaching and quasi-religious outlook irks me. On a different diary he expressed his disbelief (in terms not very different from tu quoque fili mi Migeru) that I "had been convinced" by the pro-nuke camp. I didn't even bother to express my disbelief at his interpretation of what I said, but maybe I should have back then. Then I learnt that, to Melo, Greenpeace is infallible, like the Pope, and nothing they do or say can honestly be criticized. Now I am called "diabolical". Better have your holy water handy, Melo, if we ever meet in person.

Just because it is heartflet and sincere doesn't mean that Melo doesn't come across as holier-than-thou. So maybe not sanctimonious in the sense of hypocritical but in the etymological sense of adopting an air of sainthood. I'm sorry, I have a little more self-doubt than that.

DoDo's explanation of the rationale (or should I say irrationale) behind the CASTOR protests is essentially this: 1) CASTORs are not safe because if a terrorist wanted to breach one, they could; 2) you don't believe us? We'll stage a mock terrorist attack to show you how easy it is to get within spitting distance of the CASTORs. I violently react to this because it is disingenuous, and uses bogeymen terrorists to push an agenda much like the advocates of the national security state use them to push their agenda. As for anti-nuclear direct action, I am not opposed to it in general (for instance, I think the Plowshares actions were great, but the point of those was not to pretend to be terrorists sneaking into a nuclear weapons facility to steal a warhead, was it?).

Am I included in "us enlightenmentalistas"? If so you might understand that Melo's preaching does not tell me anything about nuclear technology, but only about himself.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 07:19:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

No, that isn't how I explained the rationale behind the protests. My very initial comment included more than that, my later long explanation included much more than that, but you focused in on the secondary (or should I say tertiary) security argument alone - and that with a lot of twists worthy of wchurchill (medal for spills etc.). Those seemed to stem from a false image of the entire affair having been informed by lack of information, but you don't seem willing to sit back and evaluate the entirety of the new information I have given. Your one-liner reply to my long explanation is a good illustration.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 11:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

you don't seem willing to sit back and evaluate the entirety of the new information I have given. Your one-liner reply to my long explanation is a good illustration.

You did say the point of blocking a CASTOR transport is "proving a security risk", and when pressed about that brough up the "terrorists", then decided that my opinion couldn't possibly be other than informed by sensationalist pro-nuke coverage. To me the CASTOR protests seem dangerously reckless, sorry to disagree with you on that. As for disagreement on the permanent storage location... what alternative would the activists have preferred? I never heard anything about that.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 11:44:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

apologies Migeru if I duzenned when I should have siezenned. the intent was friendly, similar to smileys or some other emoticons to indicate absence of rancor. it was not intended condescendingly, I assure you.

I still don't read melo as representing himself as saintly; I have a feeling that's more in the eye of the beholder than in the text :-) but then in my time I've been accused of "wearing a hair shirt" or "being a saint" just for not owning a car and riding a bicycle -- so perhaps I have some inbuilt skepticism about this perception of greenish types (with or without pointy ears). to me, owning a car would be a burden, an unnecessary expense, a hassle, aesthetically displeasing, and generally not worth the overhead as well as being ethically troubling; ergo, no hair shirts here.

I think one thing that adds intensity -- and sometimes asperity to the point of venom -- to the debates over technology, transport, and power, is that people who advocate for a "simpler life" [which is hardly simple, when you consider how many endocrine and hormonal things are going on inside us as we enjoy a "simple" meal of bread cheese and wine, or how biotically complex are the processes that produce said bread cheese and wine] not only know in their gut, (having chosen some version of a simpler life voluntarily) that it offers much satisfaction and pleasure; they also feel that in pursuing their satisfaction and pleasure they do little harm, or at least less harm, than those who prefer a high-consumption, more energy-and-resource intensive lifestyle. whereas the "American Way of Life" meme, with which high energy consumption is inextricably associated, when successfully pursued inevitably displaces and destroys other lifeways as it consumes arable land, fossil fuel and fossil water, forest cover etc etc. some degrees of privilege are inherently unvulgarisable.

there is some sense I suspect in melo, and I know in myself, that some of the insistence on the "necessity" for nuclear power is an insistence on luxuries rather than necessities -- and on luxuries whose maintenance does active harm to billions; that a more equitable lifestyle would also be a more sustainable lifestyle, and would obviate at one and the same time, much suffering and the "need" to keep generating electricity at current levels. the math behind this argument is deep, and muddied by all sorts of distortions in the world of finance and money, but do-able in the world of terajoules and hektares and food calories. this underlying ethical/moral conflict may produce some of the overheated surface accusations of diabolism or excessive sanctity. just a thought.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 04:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

You sure sounded condescending, I assure you.

When I was in California I didn't own a car, I cycled, I baked my own bread, I shopped at the farmers' market...

You're lecturing me again as if I didn't know these things. Just a thought.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

You're lecturing me again

not consciously -- just talking about my own experience, in an attempt to reduce tension in the discussion. obviously it's not working and I am not cut out for a career in the dip service :-) but for the record, I value your contributions to ET highly and consider you an enlightenmentista and a Good Person(TM), and a serious greenista as well. not being much of a baker myself, I'm also impressed by the breadmaking. peace?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Please direct me to where I have claimed nuclear power is a "necessity".

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

no, I don't think that you personally have ever made that statement; nevertheless it is the primary current talking point for proponents of nuclear power -- "yes, it may be dangerous and expensive, but it is a hard necessity forced on us by climate change and peak oil" -- and, by what I think is a very natural, hardwired and hard-to-overcome process of human cognition, we tend to associate memes in clusters. so that what looks like defence of nuclear materials transport or disapproval of protesters of same, may easily/hastily be read as subscription to the pronuke talking point... what we might call the Dubya Error, "if you are not with us you are against us." I have been trying to understand why nuke power elicits such intensity of partisan feeling, polarised so sharply into "camps" or "sides" (as melo's perception of your having 'gone over to the Dark Side' illustrates).

in such a polarised atmosphere, to condemn an anti-nuke protest or appear to be defending the industry can sound on the surface, to a committed contranuker, like "taking the other side." but you notice that I haven't agreed with melo that your position is "diabolical" :-) I'm still trying to understand why this topic is so very loaded for so many of us -- almost as loaded as a debate over the political ethics of Israeli policy or Zionism, or the death penalty! -- what's the emotional freight that it carries with it... and why it is that I, for example, neither perceive Migeru as diabolical nor melo as sanctimonious :-) maybe your map would help, and I'm sorry I didn't have time last night to "do the survey". maybe tonight.

this is new territory for me, so forgive me if I'm stumbling or even flailing about a bit. I have mostly thought about the nuke question in terms of numbers, quantitative pragmatic considerations; or in terms of sociological implications as in the J Adams excerpt and related points in Part 2. I haven't actually thought about the debate itself and whether its demographics or the shape of the memespace tells us anything.

so this attempt at metanalysis is a departure, perhaps an ill-advised one... actually it was kcurie's stuff about narratives, and the sad reality that facts alone are not enough to convince most people of anything, that made me start to wonder what underlying assumptions and narratives lend the emotional heat to debates over nuclear power; why such debates are not as disinterested and abstract as debates over, say, the relative efficiency of LED lighting vs CF. why do we lose our tempers over nuclear power, why is it so polarising? and can we at ET, with a pretty good track record of civil discussion, manage to discuss this hot topic w/o a food fight?

of course, human beings are quite capable of quarrelling and remaining on frosty terms over the relative virtues of vi vs emacs :-) so perhaps trying to mute or compensate for (or even understand) the narrative/gut-level component of technology debates is a fool's errand. I thought it was worth a try. my intent is not to give offence.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Emacs, of course, unless you are editing a system configuration file.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

ah well, that explains everything -- I use vi :-) so you see, our stars are crossed and we are doomed to lifelong mutual hostility and distrust :-)

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

I use vi (actually, vim) but only inside /etc

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 05:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

oh vim of course. any other vi is substandard :-)

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 06:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

I have been trying to understand why nuke power elicits such intensity of partisan feeling, polarised so sharply into "camps" or "sides"

Maybe it has something to do with Apocalypse...

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 06:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

hmmm...

I think it certainly has something to do with the unprecedented destructive power of the technology; inmediate severe damage in a short timeframe (very perceptible to humans as "disaster", more so than the slo-mo kind) and yet persistent, lasting damage over timeframes so long as to be almost transhuman. inherently Apocalyptic I guess -- poker doesn't get much more high-stakes than this; and it's not a private gamble, as so many people in the plume path found out when the Chernobyl team fumbled the ball. the risk from nuclear technology is willynilly shared by (imposed) on all, even if the benefits are more locally constrained.

this sense of having risk imposed on one against one's will (and risk of a high order) I think is a major component of contranuke anger and passion... much as nonsmokers can get really, really angry about being obliged to breathe others' cigarette smoke... nuclear particles are about as invasive as it gets, wandering right through our cell walls; a very intimate form of turf violation. only in the last few years are people beginning to understand the degree to which industrial chemicals generally have violated the skin boundary and taken up permanent residence in our bodies; I think the moment of political anger on that issue is yet to come...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 06:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Funny, tobacco smoke makes me really, really angry but I cannot bring myself to actually tell smokers in public places to put out their cigarettes (or pipes, as was the case at one point during the ET meetup).

The health risks from food additives and vehicle exhaust are probably higher and more widespread than those from nuclear power, excluding Chernobyl, but since they are mostly self-inflicted they're ok I suppose. Like the camel-smoking anti-capitalist Barbara met in Athens recently. And when it comes to accidents, in London we recently had this reminder of the price of gasoline addiction:

In May 2006 Three Valleys Water announced that it had detected the fire retardant perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), used in fire fighting foam, in a ground water bore hole close to the Buncefield site. It stated that no water from this well entered the public water supply and that a nearby well and pumping station had been closed since the fire as a precaution. The chemical is a known health risk and the UK government had been about to ban its use. However just prior to the announcement the Drinking Water Inspectorate announced that it was increasing the safe level of the chemical in drinking water. This prompted the Hemel Hempstead MP, Mike Penning to accuse the government of changing the rules to suit the situation in which PFOS levels in drinking water in the area may rise in the future. (wiki)

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 06:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

nuclear particles are about as invasive as it gets, wandering right through our cell walls; a very intimate form of turf violation

Sometimes it's good that radiation wanders right through our cell walls, especially if you have cancer.

PET scanning is non-invasive, but it does involve exposure to ionizing radiation. The total dose of radiation is small, however, usually around 7 mSv. This can be compared to 2.2 mSv average annual background radiation in the UK, 0.02 mSv for a chest X-Ray, up to 8 mSv for a CT scan of the chest, 2-6 mSv per annum for aircrew, and 7.8 mSv per annum background exposure in Cornwall (Data from UK National Radiological Protection Board). (wiki)

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 07:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

apples and oranges, migeru -- I mean, it's a good thing that a modern hypodermic is nice and sharp and can deliver dental anaesthetic to my tooth roots with minimal gum damage, but that doesn't mean I would be happy about random jabs from sharps wielded by strangers or left lying about :-) the turf-violation aspect obviously applies to involuntary exposure, not formalised and voluntary medical procedures... more on (in)voluntary risk and perception later...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 09:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

I'm just being provocative, but as for risk perception... Isn't it interesting that Nuclear Magnetic Resonance has been renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging so as not to scare people, even though NMR has nothing to do with nuclear radiation and, say, PET does?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 25th, 2006 at 02:51:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

More of my outrage at anti-nuclear protesters...

Solar panels were not a practical solution for Galileo's power needs at Jupiter's distance from the Sun (it would have needed a minimum of 65 square metres (700 ft²) of solar panels); as for batteries, they would have been prohibitively massive. The solution adopted consisted of two radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). The RTGs powered the spacecraft through the radioactive decay of plutonium-238. The heat emitted by this decay was converted into electricity for the spacecraft through the solid-state Seebeck effect. This provided a reliable and long-lasting source of electricity unaffected by the cold space environment and high radiation fields such as those encountered in Jupiter's magnetosphere.
Each RTG, mounted on a 5-metre long boom, carried 7.8 kilograms (17.2 lb) of 238Pu [2]. Each RTG contained 18 separate heat source modules, and each module encased four pellets of plutonium dioxide, a ceramic material resistant to fracturing. The modules were designed to survive a range of hypothetical accidents: launch vehicle explosion or fire, re-entry into the atmosphere followed by land or water impact, and post-impact situations. An outer covering of graphite provided protection against the structural, thermal, and eroding environments of a potential re-entry. Additional graphite components provided impact protection, while iridium cladding of the fuel cells provided post-impact containment. The RTGs produced about 570 watts at launch. The power output initially decreased at the rate of 0.6 watts per month and was 493 watts when Galileo arrived at Jupiter.
As the launch of Galileo neared, anti-nuclear groups, concerned over what they perceived as an unacceptable risk to the public safety from Galileo's RTGs, sought a court injunction prohibiting Galileo's launch. In fact, RTGs had been safely used for years before in planetary exploration. The Lincoln Experimental Satellites 8/9, launched by the U.S. Department of Defense, had 7% more plutonium on board than Galileo, and the two Voyager spacecraft each carried 80% as much plutonium as Galileo did.
After the Challenger accident, a study considered additional shielding and eventually rejected it, in part because such a design significantly increased the overall risk of mission failure and only shifted the other risks around (for example, if a failure on orbit had occurred, additional shielding would have significantly increased the consequences of a ground impact). (wiki)

This was back when I still believed in Big Science and the space program excited ans stimulated me. But it was still worth it...

Who could have imagined that a captured asteroid now a moon of Jupiter would be found to have a tiny satellite of its own? And this is just one of many wonderful things that were found, and leaned.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 24th, 2006 at 07:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Just piching in with one comment into this, ahum, debate, as this is an issue I am doubly connected to.

Your Wiki quote fails to mention the very real risk connected to nuclear batteries for space vehicles: contamination after destruction during a crash back to Earth. The likelihood of a space vehicle's crash back on Earth is rather high (much higher than that of a power plant accident), in the order of percents per launch. IIRC there were three US and five Russian cases when an RTG came back on Earth - at least two fell into deep sea (one I know for sure was the Apollo-13 lunar module's, the other was recovered intact), but at least four others did cause contamination, albeit in less populated areas (Canada, Andes).

After the controversy of the weak design of NASA's large planetary satellite series (remember even Cassini was from the same family as the two Voyagers - and that satellite swung by Earth three times, which in case of error would have meant much higher re-entry speeds than during a failed launch), on one hand other power sources were facilitated if possible in satellite designs (also by reducing consumption of instruments), on the other hand, the few RTGs still used were designed to withstand a crash back (for example the Pluto mission's would even have separated during fallback to not be affected by the crash deformations of the rest).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu May 25th, 2006 at 06:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (4.00 / 3)

The choices in the poll don't offer much in the form of nuances, cornering me to a somewhat provocative vote...

Pierre

by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 03:40:57 AM EST

Wonderful!! (4.00 / 5)

Although two points

Some of the things you mention are not memes are complete narratives and even myths.

You forget the support among some scientists, even of the left liberal kind.

I considered myself an enviromentalist but I support strongly the replacements of the old nuclear reactors for new.

I know not a lot of people thinks in this terms in the general frame of things. But supporitng a replacement but not expansion of present nuclear reactors have subset of narratives that are not present in a typical debate:

-They are more secure than the ones working now.
-The level of nuclear waste would manageable
-Nuclear fuel would indeed last more than 200 years at present U consumption
-It would not force out renewables since all new capactity should be made with renewable..giving it time to catch upon capacity.
-It provides the margin we need to change the grid/router and make the big jump, without going to coal, from a central to a central-disperse system (I would not promote a completely disperse system, it is not a very good idea as far as I understand network theory)

Of course, reaplcemente implies that if you do nto have nuclear you will need other sources of energy...and it will.. and it will be coal now...the cheapest.

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

by kcurie on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 05:49:41 AM EST

Re: Wonderful!! (none / 0)

You forget the support among some scientists, even of the left liberal kind.

She doesn't - remember what she wrote regarding megaprojects and people involved when discussing the Three Gorges Dam.

Regarding your points:

Renewables would be even more secure.
?
This depends on political decisions (which can be changed), and given that investment in nuclear energy demands investment sustained over a decade or two, renewables would inherently be in a weak position.
I don't understand why you think this. Replacement nuclear would, too, take decades to build, you could build the new grid in the same timespan.

That replacement of nuclear needs to be coal on price is a nice meme that is false.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonderful!! (4.00 / 3)

The starting point which makes the difference in position is:

can you obtained the increase in demand in energy (slow increase thanks to saving measures) and the input of nuclears with renewables in a 10 years frame?

I think is physically impossible. If I would think it to be possible I would think like you.

I do not, I think it is not possible. At least for the case I know the best: Spain (not even talking about France).

We can not substitute coal and nuclear with renewables in a 10-15 years frame.

If we work hard, and exploit all possibilities, and invest hugely we can substitute most of the coal in a 15 years frame (and this is even a wild dream...a more realistic would be half coal or just cover the increase in demand). No way if we add the 20% of nuclear.

That said. We can substitute nuclear with renewable investing heavily in 15 years.. but then coal should be untouched.

I prefer to increase renewable and phase-out coal power as renewable improve.

The day I see a realistic proposal about how to change nuclear and coal in Spain in a 15 years frame with renewable I will cahnge my mind. And you know I am very very very open minded.. and I would love to see it.

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

by kcurie on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonderful!! (none / 1)

But supporitng a replacement but not expansion of present nuclear reactors

I added this option to the poll :-)

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 02:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I love you (none / 0)

you know it, don't you? :)

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

by kcurie on Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 05:23:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Broadening the picture: energy beyond electricity (4.00 / 4)

There is something else that has to be taken into account: our energy needs are not just electric. We use tremendous amounts of heat of chemical processes, metallurgy, manufacturing. Of course, this could be cut down if production/consumption as a whole was down. But I don't feel that it can be eliminated. Quite the contrary, if we are to produce fertilizers one day with hydrogen that comes from water, not natural gaz, convert other plastics manufacturing to biomass feedstocks for CHON that could be energy sinks instead of sources like fossil fuels double up today in most process where they are used as materials also.

When you need heat, a fuel is at an advantage against electricity: you get 100% of the energy in it, not just 45% as limited by thermodynamics when converting to electricity. It is very wasteful to generate heat with electricity that has been slowly accumulated with renewables. Some newer nuclear plants address this need (PBR, IFR, super-critical water reactors...). The EPR does not. But in my view it is clearly a stopgap to cope with the obsolescence of current plants, with only incremental upgrades to PWR, doesn't qualify as true 3-rd gen in any way.

Pierre

by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:06:05 AM EST

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 1)

Renewables aren't only for generating electricity. Both geothermal and solar-thermal power can generate heat. The potential of the former, in the hot-dry-rock version, is available in much more regions and is largely untapped today - and there is much room for development. (Germany has a few dry-rock pilot plants.)

While I'm not much of a biomass plant fan, they too are capable of dual production.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 0)

Using non-renewable energy sources for heating must be one of the most wasteful ideas ever implemented.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:39:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 0)

er, I'm lost, you mean renewable ? Using non-renewable energy is bad in general, but when heating is necessary for a given purpose, burning fuel has an edge (in term of technical ease, as of today) over electricity except in special cases like aluminum smeltering. I just think we must anticipate the burden that heat-intensive industries (and we will always have some) will put on non-fossil energy sources when the fossil fuels become just unaffordable...

Pierre

by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:47:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (4.00 / 2)

Non-renewable resources shouldn't be burnt for heat, no. They have a low entropy content which is useful for doing work, not just as a source of heat, and being non-renewable means that they are the result of accumulation by processes on a geological time-scale. Burning them is thermodynamically wasteful.

There are renewable heat sources: geothermal, solar heating, solar furnaces [if you need temperatures in the thousands of Kelvin). There are renewable [carbon-neutral] fuels: biomass, wood, ethanol...

Heat-intensive industries will be limited by the amount of renewable heat that can be farmed.

A separate argument is that a fuel is too precious (in its energy density and its mobility) to burn it in a static industrial plant. The opportunity cost is too large. I don't have a problem with using renewable electricity for a heat-intensive industry, the opportunity cost is less, especially if the power comes from an attach power facility (solar panels, wind farm, sharing the location of the industrial plant; building the industrial plant on a geothermal hot spot, near a tidal power generator...).

That os my opinion anyway. It's not backed by any actual calculations, back-of-the-envelope or not.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 0)

I think actually most process industries use natural gas or coal (cheapest options) and not liquid fuels for heating feedstocks. In some cases they double up as feedstock (coal for steel, natural gas for fertilizer).

Pierre

by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 0)

Just because they are not liquid doesn't mean gas or coal are not mobile, dense fuels. Natural gas is a fluid and it is used increasingly in public transportation (I don't know whether it is liquefied or not). I wonder whether coal powder wouldn't be a more efficient way of using coal for mobile applications.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 1)

The trouble with coal powder as fuel (at least in steam locomotive applications) is that it sticks to surfaces and clogs up various parts. As fuel it is very efficient.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 1)

Powdering is key: it dramatically increases the area-to-volume ratio [combustion in a gas atmosphere happens on the surface] and minimizes the production of incompletely combusted products, which are generally dangerously polluting as they are chemically active (example: carbon monoxide is the result of incomplete combustion and is a poison as it binds to hemoglobin more strongly than osygen; carbon dioxide is the result of complete combustion ans is chemically inert).

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (4.00 / 3)

The one surviving (East) German coal powder locomotive (recognisable due to high tender), [class] 52 [no.] 9900:

...as you have given me another opportunity to push trains...

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:43:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Broadening the picture: energy beyond electric (none / 1)

Some busses of the RATP in Paris are gas-powered. It's liquefied, in a long tank on the roof. The gas goes into a regular engine, probably with some tuning. Also I saw a PR a few month ago about a british university designing a gas-powered urban vehicle similar to a quad or a BMW-scooter with roof, for ultra-low power mobility.

Pierre

by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 1)

I think this is an excellent summry, and each of the pro/con position deserves a diary by itself... Now there's a community project.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:40:46 AM EST

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (4.00 / 2)

True, but let us stipulate that De's bias does shine through her recitation of the pro nuclear arguments...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (4.00 / 4)

I am thinking of a Nuclear Compass. We can basically take each of De's talking points (and sub-points) and ask people to state whether they (strongly) agree or disagree with each of them [4 options only). Then I can run a statistical analysis and construct a spectrum of opinion.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:22:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

Would you? Do so!

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:27:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (4.00 / 3)

Tonight.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

super idea Migeru! virtual chocolates to you.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 05:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

you mean her ability to round up information that is not in your energy proposal for the dems?

<snark>

if the so-called pragmatists win out on this one, and billions that could have gone into renewables and conservation get funnelled into these retro-behemoths, at leat we can keep our eyes open through taking on board the human import of what the history and facts betray, (as antidote to the gyroscopic spin we will be subjected to by the corporate media).

are you disputing any facts here, jerome, or asking deanander to be more 'fair and balanced'?

we already have plenty of aplogists for nukes repped here; i for one am heartily relieved to see dodo and deanander speaking up for sanity.

without them this site would be sad indeed, as would the majority's tendency to 'amory lovins' on this issue.

while bush distracts us with his 'wot' we are in another much bigger one, a war on ignorance, ignorance that leaves us terribly manipulatable, and totally unprepared for what looms ahead.

you laugh at britain's absurdly slow response to her obvious coming shortfall, but aren't we all in similar boats in the rest of europe?

if this was the blitz, we would drop everything and work together unpaid to protect our loved ones.

i think we need to do the same now, but instead of bomb shelters in the underground, we need to insulate our houses and provide micropower sources on as wide a base as we presently provide water and the phone.

if there were the will, it could be done.

until the consequences of our gullibility stare us in the face even more, diaries like this, (and intelligent discussion around their points,) are pretty much all we have to fight back against the westinghouses and bechtels (and their puppet shills like t. bliar) who don't give a ff about anything else than their own blind, greedy profits.

sorry to rant, but this issue really galls me bigtime.

humans without any bias don't exist, or are decision-incapable.

you stand up for your beliefs here, and your bias to wind is one of the giant magnets keeping me glued to your site.

thankyou for this, and i'll thankyou even more, if you were to adopt a line closer to deanander and dodo's.

some things are harder to put in graphs!

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 10:32:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Nuclear Skeptic, Part 1: Drawing the Play (none / 0)

absolutely -- "objective" journalism is something I neither aspire to nor believe in, though "trying to be fair" is on my list of desiderata. my own bias is openly advertised in the title and in my previous short comments on energy, food, transport etc.: in favour of light/low, light/high, or heavy/low tech, against heavy/high tech; against Taylorism, monocroppery, massive centralisation and authoriarian control; pessimistic about Peak Oil and geopolitical stability over the 50 year timeframe; pro-localisation as a hedge bet against social/econ disruption and dislocation due to PO; against gigantism and Pharaonic projects, whether financial, architectural, or energy-related; absolutely incredulous (read: flabbergasted) about infinite-growth economic or energy models; and optimistic about the viability and satisfaction of life at greatly reduced burn rates.

all the above positioning on various meme grids adds up to a skepticism about nuclear energy which I'm trying to describe and discuss. and where else but ET is there any chance of having a civil and informative discussion?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...