European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

How can we talk rationally about nuclear energy?

by Jerome a Paris
Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 06:53:44 AM EST

This night, another diary about nuclear by NNadir over at DailyKos turned into a foodfight, with NNadir pointing to Germany's example to say that being anti-nuclear only brings about more coal plants (and "dangerous fossil fuel waste", a concept I happen to wholeheartedly endorse), and opponents fighting against the idea that there are no alternatives others than nuclear or coal (something I also happily agree with).

Then today, we hear about a new stunt by Greenpeace which is hanging signs on the cooling towers of nuclear plant in Belleville-sur-Loire to protest against the EPR. Fair enough; that's their ideas and their modus operandi. But they state this:

"La France n'en a pas besoin pour satisfaire sa consommation d'énergie et des études démontrent qu'une fois construit l'EPR sera le réacteur le plus dangereux au monde", ajoute Frédéric Mariller, chargé de la campagne nucléaire de Greenpeace France, selon le communiqué.
"France does not need it to fulfill its energy needs, and studies demonstrate that, once built, the EPR will be the most dangerous reactor in the world" states Frédéric Mariller, coordinator of the nuclear campaign for Greenpeance France in their press release.

While the first assertion might be true if energy pattern uses were changed, it is also meaningless in the context of an interconnected European energy market where electricity is closer to being scarce than to being too plentiful, and where, again, policies are currently doing next to nothing to bring about conservation and efficiency. I know that Greenpeace does advocate energy savings, but I never hear about them doing that, and it's even less of a priority for others in the public sphere, which thus makes that assertion above problematic. The second sentence is so stupid that it beggars belief that they would say that so publicly. I know they consider the EPR to be unsafe, but the most dangerous reactor in the world? In all seriousness? It's hard to take them seriously when you read such pointless over-the-top rhetoric.

Thus we are left to choose between the pro-nuclear camp that tells those that disagree with them that they are ignorant, support the destruction of all life on the planet, and (worse!) are pro-coal shills, and the anti-nuclear camp that tells opponents that they are ignorant, support the destruction of all life on earth and (worse!) are pro-nuclear industry shills.

And nuclear energy debates seem well on their way to become as pointless as Israel-Palestine debates.

Which is a pity, because we will need energy (lots of it) in the foreseeable future, and we are burning lots of fossil fuels to get it, currently, with increasingly obvious consequences and costs. And the more noise is generated by the nuclear debate, the more coal plants get built. It would be a lot more useful if all parties focused on the real long term problem: carbon-spewing coal-plants, and on the real long term solutions: conservation and renewable energy.

. 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

How can we talk rationally about nuclear energy? | 173 comments (173 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Feel free (4.00 / 5)

to call me a wind shill.

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

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 06:54:21 AM EST

RE this diary .... (none / 1)

Going to post this discussion at Daily Kos as well.

Must say, that I must not be entirely wrong ... I was roundly (and even nastily) attacked by both sides in those posts.

"all [I] do is parrot the conclusions of grossly flawed, biased studies largely sponsored by anti-nuclear groups."
"His truthiness does nothing for the discussion. Your defense of his "signature" style does nothing to convince me that I am wrong about him being a shill. Step back and re-read your words. Do you really think that you are convincing?"

And, so on ...

Perhaps being in the middle of that spat means either that I am totally disconnected from reality or, more positively, am one of the ones trying to be dispassionate about looking at options and requirements.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Saw that (4.00 / 2)

You took the two examples that took the cake for me - I thought that was completely uncalled for. Sorry to see that happen.

Rational always seems to leave the building - spectacularly so in a nuclear discussion - it always melts down (sorry pun). As if triggering Godwin's Law. Perhaps we should call it Chernobyl's Law...

It's worrying at several levels: (one of) the new attack dog of the BAU crowd is painting every environmentalist a religious convert. Responses like you received do not help to alleviate that building narrative.

by Nomad on Wed Mar 28th, 2007 at 02:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We can't (none / 1)

Because it's not about facts but about narratives.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 06:59:05 AM EST

Re: We can't (4.00 / 2)

There's a problem because the Old Left is traditionally against stuff. And it's usually against very particular stuff in a small way, rather than being for better stuff in a policy-based strategic way.

Which is why it fits the Greenpeace MO to reduce nuclear to a 'Non!' soundbite.

This suits the pro-nuclear lobby just fine, because it makes it easy to dismiss more substantial criticisms on the basis that the anti-nuke lobby is staffed entirely by woolly-hatted extremists.

But you can also turn the question around and ask - if there's going to be a debate about nuclear, where is it going to be held? In what public forum?

Aside from online, I'm not sure where it's possible to find a venue where nuclear issues can even begin to be debated intelligently without PR mortar bombs flying from entrenched positions on both sides.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:16:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can't (4.00 / 2)

What do you mean by "old left"? Because the traditional statist (communist/socialist) left was definitely productivist, for "progress" and industry, and liked "stuff". In fact, its model of development proved to be even more environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable that capitalism.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can't (4.00 / 2)

I mean the old left with green/anarchist sympathies, rather than the old unionised left.

The parliamentary Labour party in the UK has always balanced an alleged but fictitious affinity with that kind of left-wingery with a fairly mainstream statist centrism.

Tony isn't really all that new from that point of view.

But it's the more extreme activist old left I'm thinking of - and Greenpeace is one of the few noteworthy surviving remnants.

You can argue whether or not green = left, and there are some obvious differences. But my point is really that the Greenpeace approach has a lot in common with what is now a very dated single-issue protest-driven activist approach, which can easily alienate anyone who isn't a fervent believer.

It's a different approach to (say) FoE which is making more of an effort at the lobbying level.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 09:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can't (4.00 / 2)

If I might interject, it's been my experience, at least as far as nuclear goes, that the old left was very much for.

And still is.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:07:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (4.00 / 8)

I think this is a debate about how to price in externalities.

wind is a bit more expensive but has very few externalities; to be reliable as a dominant base load supply, it would need some serious storage mechanisms which currently cost a lot more money (but how much is not quite clear, on the scale required);
coal is cheap, using current "market" pricing with "free" resource extraction and "free" spewing of carbon (i.e. paid by others - our descendants that will live without these resources in the future, and people that face or will face the consequences of pollution and global climate change). To make it pay for the structural consequences of its technology would be pretty expensive, but this is seen as a new, extra, cost instead of the materialization of a real cost, and thus a luxury;
nuclear is cheap, but comes with some additional costs for which it is really hard to say if they are properly incorporated: the net present value of the cost of long term storage of waste, the cost of the risk of something happening wiht that waste in the future, and the cost of the risk of a major accident. The last two items are a real challenge, as they require estimates which are very hard to make: that of the probability of events far in the future, that of the probability of very rare events, and that of the (large) cost of a big accident. Add in the necessity to use a discount rate for very far off future events, and the range of costs that can be describe as "reasonable" becomes a wide gap - which can never be reconciled.

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

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 1)

As I said to Colman in the thread I link above, the frame that "this is a debate about pricing externalities" puts you squarely outside the frame of the anti-nuclear side. That would be enough for some in that frame to call you a pro-nuclear advocate, because either you're with us or against us (you either share our frame or you don't).

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree with you there (4.00 / 2)

All the anti-nuclear groups do is to put a higher price and/or higher probability to a nuclear accident, and to use a lower discount rate for far off events linked to nuclear waste.

They are talking about the estimated cost of externalities (in that case, of potential externalities), and finding it unacceptably high in the case of nuclear.

Your notion of a debate on frames might be applied to the distinction between costs already borne (pollution, climate change) and those that are not borne, but have a non-nil probability of occurring (reactor meltdown, terrorist attack using nuclear material), i.e. certain risks vs potential risks.

And that actually puts the anti-nuclear group more firmly in the "externalities" camp, as they are the one that set a price to potential risks, whereas the nuclear camp looks at actual consequences today of their industry and say that they are excellent (so far) and will continue to be so.

The disagreement is on the 'will ocntinue to be so'.

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

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

I think the anti-nuclear groups are actually putting an infinite cost on nuclear meltdown, in other words, they don't think cost-benefit analysis is the right tool when you have very large risks of very low probability in the very long term. It's not about how much the cost is, but about the fact that some costs are unacceptable. That is a certain starting point.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Take, for example, De's 4000-work debunking of the cost-benefit analysis frame. She doesn't want to reason in that frame. That's the opposition's frame. She needs to bring the debate to her frame, and when in the cost/benefit frame she's interested in reducing it to absurdity on the grounds that zero times infinity is an indeterminate quantity.

This reminds me of the way NASA would claim that the chance of an accident due to individual causes (say, a failure in this or that engine component) was as low as one in several hundred years of daily flights.

[I hope I'm not putting words in De's mouth here]

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

energy food fights (4.00 / 5)

I think I've said most of what I have to say about COBA and risk calculus. Worth mulling over imho is this recent news:

Wind Power Momentarily Outperforms Nuclear Power in Spain

Taking advantage of a particularly gusty period, Spain's wind energy generators this week reached an all-time high in electricity production, exceeding power generated by all other means, the nation's electricity network authority said in a statement.
At 5.40pm (0340 AEDT on Tuesday) on Monday, wind power generation rose to contribute 27 per cent of the country's total power requirement, Red Electrica said.
At that moment wind power contributed 8,375 mega watts to the nation's power consumption of 31,033.
Nuclear power, the second largest contributor, added 6,797 mega watts, while coal-fired electric generation came third with 5,081, the statement said.
National broadcaster TVE said it believed this may have been the first time wind power exceeded nuclear power's contribution to the power grid.
Over the course of last year wind power contributed nine per cent of the nation's requirement while coal-fired power stations put in 24 per cent and nuclear power 22 per cent.
Spain has in recent years turned to harnessing wind power through the use of tall, slender electricity generating turbines on remote hillsides.

I doubt that Spain's wind power facility is fully built out. What might it generate at full build-out (every suitable site optimally populated with towers, on large and small scales)?

The traditional argument is that wind, being intermittent, is an "unreliable" source of energy; however there are increasing concerns in the literature of late about vanishing ice pack and lower river levels, extended droughts etc. forcing the shutdown of existing nuke plants that rely on river water for cooling. Higher winds are more likely as the global climate destabilises, reliable river flows are less likely. Which would be wiser to bet on? My county is looking at water rationing starting May 1 this year.

I have always seen nuclear as a very fragile technology, an optimist's wager; the era we are heading into is likely to be unkind to fragile technologies. If stranded on a desert island I would rather have a Swiss Army Knife and an umbrella than an iPod and a laptop -- let alone a chainsaw and a Humvee. In unstable/unpredictable conditions, the lowest and simplest level of technology that will do the job is the safest bet. [any sailor knows that -- GPS is a luxury, a sextant is a comfort, but you'd better know how to improvise a latitude hook.]

Most technomanagers do their thinking from highly stable built environments, insulated almost entirely (by urban structures, by affluence, by lifeway) from the very notion of uncontrollable events; they are wholly acclimatised to perching atop a vast pyramid of interlocking assumptions of stability and order. It;s a workplace culture thing. Consequently a weakness of the technomanagerial culture is the temptation to live and design in a dream of perfect predictive power and complete control. This is sometimes called "success-oriented engineering" but I call it Optimist's Poker -- it assumes stabilities (social, technical, physical) and predictabilities that may not actually obtain. [a more succinct but less diplomatic summation might be "hubris."]

My impression is that events are moving now faster than the newsfeeds can keep up, and faster than I can keep up with the news feeds. Massive public (or private) works projects can take a decade and more to complete; how much will the facts on the ground have changed before project completion? When conditions are chaotic, think small, light, and distributed :-)

One simple example of success-oriented engineering is that nuke plants need a reliable power source in order to shut down safely. If the rest of the grid fails, they need diesel generators. And if there is no fuel for the diesel generators?

If I were doing long-term infrastructure planning today, I would say, "design for NOLA. design for Iraq. don't assume geopolitical, climate, demographic, water stability. assume unpredictability. and hence: decentralise, diversify, fractalise." If the road ahead is bumpy, fragile technologies (and I count big coal, big nuke, big anything in this category) are not the best investment. They break just when you most need them, like fancy marine electronics. [People who had bicycles found it easier to get home in NYC on the afternoon of 9/11 than people in cars.] And if you've spent all your money on the fancy stuff, and none on fallbacks, it's too late to change course.

IMHO and as I have said in earlier diary form, the debate is between optimisms and pessimisms. Both big coal and big nuke proponents are technomanagerial optimists. Their detractors are not necessarily anti-technology, but usually anti-authoritarian and hence anti-technomanagerial -- pessimistic about continuity and stability at the macro level, pessimistic about the honesty and competence of elites, but optimistic about the empowerment, competence, and stability of community at the micro and regional level. These are deep philosophical differences. They lead to the heart of what we mean by (and feel about) community and State, security and risk, liberty and hope.

And I suppose, for the bean-counters among us, there's always the inconvenient graphs that show the cost of uranium going up 900 pct in the last decade. Hard to build trustworthy thirty-year payback calculations in such a volatile market. Whereas the cost of prevailing winds has remained pretty constant for the last few millennia: zero :-) If I were a project manager with an honest fixed-price contract -- rather than a porkbarrel welfare billionaire counting on cost overruns to finance my third mansion -- I know which plant I'd rather bid on.

All of this begs a lot of other questions, particularly the extractive/destructive nature of both coal and nuclear, environmental disasters left in the wake of mining operations, "externalised costs" in the form of waste disposal, colonialist dynamics between the extracting interests and indigenes and workers, etc. -- the same complex of issues found in fossil fuel, gold, cashcropping, and other extractive industries. We could argue that the metals used in wind tower construction are a product of similarly abusive practises, but at least they are extracted once for a long operational lifetime... and they don't get recycled into exotic munitions to poison a generation of soldiers and civilians...

The whole coal-vs-nuke circus to me is like WWF on TV; just change the damn channel already :-) I am not really interested in a victory by either the Anthracite Hunk or the Neutron Nabob. To crown either one as king imho would be a loss for the biotic realm and for social capital, the keys to our survival and thrival. We need to start thinking outside this box of Pharaonic construction projects -- and imho to grow out of proving how macho we are by playing Chicken with high toxicity technologies.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 3)

with you on this. It is different to do a potential cost analysis which is summed up as risk x cost and to say that the cost are far to astronomical (potentially) to be balanced by risk. If you can't afford something happening, it makes no sense to take the risk of it happening, whatever the probability really is.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:00:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

I think you're right there. I want to know why they are putting an infinite cost on it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 09:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

If you're doing cost-benefit analysis and someone says "this cost is unacceptable", you write down "infinity" in the cost matrix.

Like in quantum field theory, the appearance of infinities is indicative of the clash of frames.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 09:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Yes, yes, I understand that. It's why the cost is unacceptable that interests me, and I don't understand that clearly even with De's opus.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 09:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

In fact, the pro-nuclear retort that Coal is much worse than nuclear waste (though not than a nuclear meltdown, I suppose) attempts to make people bite the bullet that Coal is also unacceptable. And some people, like De, do bite that bullet. And then comes the charge that without plentiful energy you'd have to drastically reduce the standard of living. And I think De bites that bullet too.

But then, of course, comes the deconstruction of the "standard of living" frame.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 09:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 2)

I don't say that coal is unacceptable. I think living in a coal-fueled society is extremely much better than living without electricity at all.

But I think coal is unacceptable considering all the possible competitive alternatives.

When you have a choice between squalor and CO2 emissions, I don't blame you for choosing to emit CO2. But if you are already living at a very high standard of living the act of not choosing a realistic alternative to coal becomes an immoral act.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

I presented "coal is unacceptable" only as a rhetorical reply to the claim that nuclear waste poses unacceptable risks.

Within a risk/benefit analysis coal simply has a quantifiable risk and a quantifiable benefit, just like nuclear.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 3)

Only if you are ready to discuss quantifiable risks and weigh them against each other.

Some people, for very different reasons, have absolute beliefs no amount of debate and statsitics can change...

I think that is a very bad position and thoroughly support debate and risk/benefit analysis. I am not a pro-nuclear fanatic. If for example solar power had a great break through and became better than nuclear I would switch all my support to it in a second.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

I won't speak for De, but it is a very common on the anti-nuclear side (which I share and thematised a number of times on ET) that the risk is not quantifiable.

*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 Mar 29th, 2007 at 04:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

very common view.

*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 Mar 29th, 2007 at 04:41:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

So far nobody has claimed my comments on this thread are misrepresentations of the respective positions. You are, in fact confirming my analysis of the debate.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

I still have read only a small part of the discussion here.

The difference I wanted to make is between the argument that a certain well-defined risk, whatever its magnitude (at least within a range) is unacceptable (say, the risk of error in judgement for the death penalty); and the argument that due to not well enough known factors or too many important factors to take them all into account or nonlinear, loopback dependencies, the risk can't be computed reliably (and numbers presented are almost certainly underestimations).

*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 Mar 29th, 2007 at 02:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 4)

I find it yet another false dichotomy to say we must choose between "squalor" and high energy consumption via extractive technologies.

as pointed out on an earlier thread I have heard Americans refer to the UK contemptuously as a "third world country" because the cars were smaller than giant US gas guzzlers. obviously to them, driving anything smaller than an F150, or at least a luxury US-market sedan, was squalid and infra dig.

we'd have to have a good definition of "squalor" before any choices can be proposed between "squalor" and something else. and we'd have to do some careful exposition and analysis of "squalor-elsewhere" technologies which deliver comfort, order, and luxury to one demographic or region while imposing disorder, degradation, illness and loss of life on another demographic or region. the technologies which affluent industrialistas cherish elements of The Good Life -- cheap jet travel, cheap longhaul food, mountains of material goods, the cheap energy that underwrites such luxuries -- all produce mountains of Squalor Elsewhere, in mine tailings, marine and aquifer and soil toxicity, destruction of habitats and cultures, despotism and immiseration, corruption, slavery and wage-slavery, grotesque animal and human suffering, climate destabilisation, resource wars, etc.

someone once said that nothing could be considered beautiful if it produced ugliness elsewhere. I would say that no way of life can be called non-squalid if it produces squalor elsewhere.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0)

cherish elements of The Good Life

s/b

cherish as elements of The Good Life

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 02:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

I find it yet another false dichotomy to say we must choose between "squalor" and high energy consumption via extractive technologies.

Oh, you misunderstood me.

I didn't mean being more energy efficient equals living in squalor, not at all. I meant that we can't blame Chinese peasants who are living in squalor for not caring that their electricity is coal-fired.

But to maintain a high economic standard of living (something definitely supported by the people) we do need very cheap electricity to run our extremely energy efficient heavy industry, which is what makes my country go. If you live in Denmark or the UK cheap power does not matter as both countries pretty much lack heavy industry. London is the world capital of finance (high value-added low-energy jobs) and Denmark is all about agri-business.

Ordinary people don't need cheap power (people don't starve in spite of our massive power taxes) but the Swedish companies that supply high value-added jobs in industry do (and are exempt from said power taxes) as their much more energy inefficient competitors in Russia, Australia and South Africa has.

Otherwise the jobs move and then that's the end of the Swedish welfare state.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 08:23:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

No one inclined to comment on this one?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 at 06:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 4)

(though not than a nuclear meltdown,

That I don't understand: TMI and Chernobyl have shown that a core meltdown isn't so terrible on the world scale. Even if one or two hundred thousand people develop deadly cancers, over the course thirty years, in a total population of several billions (making it a laughably small portion of all natural deaths that will happen over such a long period of time in such a large sample), Chernobyl is a non-event beyond a few hundred miles of the site.

Look at the sea-level rise simulators over the century, who will effectively displace and starve hundreds of (unborn) millions...

Pierre

by Pierre on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 2)

though not than a nuclear meltdown, I suppose

The normal(!) operation of coal in the US is about as bad as six nuclear meltdowns each year. (see
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter6.html for details)

by ustenzel on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 05:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

I agree with the idea that the antis even refuse to discuss cost-benefit.

As NNadir often says, "there is no risk-free energy, only risk-mininmized energy".

But this is an impossible position of the antis as they then would have to start comparing different alternatives instead of just screaming "NO!".

They would have to be responsible stakeholders and accept compromise. And it's much more fun to be radical and against things in general.

And the idea that the cost of a meltdown would be infinite... preposterous, of course. I mean, it's not like Harrisburg was vaporized by the TMI accident. The only one who was hurt by it was the plant owner, and on a pr-level the entire nuclear industry.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

One area where I am uncompromising is the death penalty because the cost of executing an innocent person is (to me) unacceptable and the risk (indisputably) nonzero.

So it is not absurd that there should be unacceptable risks. There will, of course, be disagreements on whether a risk is unacceptable.

The question is what happens when you have a group of people who believe a certain course of action is unacceptable but you still have to make a collective decision.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

Well, in a democracy the minority will be run over by the majority. If this group who disagrees with the majority feels that this is an extremely important issue where there can be no compromise, they will begin an armed struggle and the state can only answer with repression.

Sooner or later tempers will cool and a compromise will be reached, or one of the sides will be completely and thoroughly marginalized and destroyed.

"Dictatorship of the majority" and "the worst of all systems of government except all the others", remember? :)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:33:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, the destruction of Belarus and the Ukraine (none / 1)

was THOROUGHLY acceptable.

To WHOM was it thoroughly acceptable!?

You are irresponsible deathtrippers. I stop writing now before I actually lose patience.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 12:40:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, the destruction of Belarus and the (none / 1)

You know, that is what we would call a personal attack, and probably deserves rating down.

Is your position so weakly grounded that even discussion about discussion is unacceptable?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 02:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, the destruction of Belarus and the (none / 0)

I think Gaianne and Ustenzel make my points for me.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, the destruction of Belarus and the Ukrain (none / 1)

Now, try to imagine my position.

I consider your opinion of being that of an irresponsible deathtripper which will result in the destruction of, if not the planet or the human race, then at least a vast number of other species and a thorough fucking up of the climate.

And the assertion that Chernobyl has anything to do with LWR's is just as preposterous as usual.

I am trying very much to be civil. It is rather hard considering what I believe your opinions will result in. But I try and will continue because I believe the only way to solve all these issues is through fact-based unprejudiced debate.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:18:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, the destruction of Belarus and the Ukrain (none / 0)

Destroyed huh? News to me.

News also for the family who stayed with us last summer, I guess they just pretend that their house in Kiev isn't actually a pile of ash-strewn rubble surrounded by thousands of miles of desolate wasteland...

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 09:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, the destruction of Belarus and the Ukrain (none / 1)

I've heard people in Ukraine had to go to the markets with a geiger counter because contaminated food would be on offer despite government assurances to the contrary.

So Ukraine wasn't devastated, but the situation was pretty fucked up for a while.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 09:58:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huge areas are unihabitable (4.00 / 2)

and will remain so for centuries.

Children die from ailments that elsewhere are not even diseases, because of suppressed immune systems due to radiation exposure. Exposure is endemic and unavoidable.

Yes about the geigercounters. The industry/government has always lied, and still does.

You are wrong to construe this as an argument for coal. I am not a fan of coal. In the US coal mining is (and has been for decades) destroying the Appalachian Mountains, and poisoning the watersheds that feed the Ohio River. The scale is geographic.

I do not agree that coal vs. nuclear is the argument. It is only if you are committed to the death trip.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 03:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huge areas are unihabitable (none / 0)

Please show the numbers. The WHO doesn't find any measurable increase in any "ailments". (With the exception of ~1.800 cases of thyroid cancer, which come about by a different and understood mechanism.)

by ustenzel on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 08:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 3)

If it was only about different evaluation of the same risks, anti-nuclear groups would have no need to spread outright lies. (Just one particularly ridiculous example: anti-atom.de claims that in case of a meltdown the bottom of the reactor vessel could melt off and the remaining overheated water would drive the vessel through the containment's roof like a rocket. Plainly absurd, and showing the absurdity requires only Newtonian physics.)

This complete nonsense is no longer about evaluation, this is gross ignorance of basic physics and borders on religious faith. These groups dislike nuclear power for no good reason and just rationalise their position. They are either completely stupid (Helen Caldicott), shills of the coal industry (Peter Beattie) or in the business of selling a good conscience (Greenpeace), which requires a bad conscience to begin with.

by ustenzel on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 05:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

You may be technically correct, but why do you throw in so many ad hominem attacks? (outright lies, gross ignorance, completely stupid, shills, in the business of selling, bad conscience).

As Colman says above, if your arguments are grounded, that should be sufficient.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 04:47:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

if your arguments are grounded, that should be sufficient

The problem is not the facts, it's the narratives.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Didn't say "grounded in facts".

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Does "grounded on beliefs" count?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Everything is, eventually.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

I have said before I'd like to know what DoDo and Starvid can agree on regarding nuclear.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

That sounds awfully postmodernistic.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

I think it's been fairly well stablished that no, this debate is not rational.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

No, fact of life: at some stage every rational argument, and every irrational one, is based on the assumptions that people make about the world.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:53:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

We're just moving beyond trying to understand the argument to trying to understand the arguers' motives.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 06:01:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with you here (none / 1)

every rational argument, and every irrational one, is based on the assumptions that people make about the world.

That's why a Model is so important and, I submit, why a Model hasn't been constructed. Neither side in this debate wants to find an intellectual solution. They prefer shouting at each other.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

Explain what you mean by constructing a Model?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:26:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

A Model is an intellectual construction that is an abstraction of phenomena built so you can crank it around and see what happens. The IPCC Climate Change Model is the best known, I'd guess.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 1)

If that's what you meant then the problem would be building the model, not what you do with it afterwards. The basis for the model doesn't seem to something that can be agreed.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:50:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 1)

In which case, it's hopeless. We've got two groups, minimum, shouting at each other for the next 10 years and energy policy will be decided by whichever group captures the emotions of the largest number of people, at any particular time.

In other words, what we've seen for the past 30 years.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:12:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (4.00 / 2)

I'm sorry, that's just a description of politics. Nothing specific to nuclear energy.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

Actually, where government is technocratic, energy policy will tend to be pro-nuclear and public opinion anti-nuclear. The reason is that the pro-nuclear position is compatible with the technocratic frame of policymakers. The anti-nuclear side doesn't want to speak the language of cost-benefit analysis while the pro-nuclear does. The anti-nuclear side will then accuse "technocrats" of being "death-wishers" and turn to trying to sway public opinion so nuclear development becomes politically untenable.

Where government is not technocratic, what you describe is the case.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe not (none / 1)

French public opinion is not anti-nuclear.

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

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 06:07:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe not (none / 0)

Though not as massively pro-nuclear as Swedish opinion.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 08:14:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Massively pro-nuclear? (none / 0)

I think the last one I saw had numbers of something like:

decommision 25%
keep, but not build 40%
build more 35%

But my memory might be playing tricks on me. As it really is two over-lapping questions you end up with a mayority for keep and a mayority for do not build more.

I would call it moderately pro-nuclear.

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 08:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Massively pro-nuclear? (none / 0)

Swedes are as far as I know the most pro-nuclear people in the world.

The breakdown is about this:

Build new: 30 %

Keep the old but don't build new: 50 %

Shut down before the reactors are decommisioned because of economic or safety reasons: 10 %

Don't know: 10 %

In the event of even a small energy/climate crisis, or even just a serious proposal to build a new reactor, I guess at least half of the "keep but don't build new" will switch to "build new".

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 08:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

I submit each side has a different model.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

Well ... they have a series of propositions dedicated to proving their point(s) and justifying their position(s) I hesitate to call that a Model.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

How about they have incompatible sets of axioms?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:58:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

If the Model builders cannot agree on a set of axioms then the process fails.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

And that wasn't responsive to your comment, sorry.

I'll write a responsive comment later today as I have to run.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

That's why I keep saying that I'd like to know what DoDo and Starvid can agree on.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (4.00 / 4)

"Burning coal is very bad"?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 12:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (4.00 / 2)

Maybe also that wind and PV aren't bad and about changing the transport structure :-)

*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 Mar 29th, 2007 at 02:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

Are there any "facts" about nuclear than you can both agree on?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 06:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (4.00 / 2)

U-235 is fissionable?

*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 Mar 29th, 2007 at 06:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 0)

That's a good start.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 06:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you here (none / 1)

How about they have incompatible sets of axioms?

OK, I'll buy that.

The trick about axioms, as you know, is since they are the Rules of the Game, they cannot be defended. They just is.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 07:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Not interested in facts/narratives here, but the quality of discourse. If someone has a good argument, they don't need ad hominems.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 1)

Well, there are those who think they have laid out their argument thousands of times and that there are these willfully obtuse people who just refure to believe their eyes.

So we see a lot of "you're being obtuse but you're obviously not a moron so you must be evil".

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 2)

Because both sides also believe only their policy prescriptions can save the world. So, if you don't agree to the policy prescriptions you must not want to save the world.

And so on.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Variable Weight (none / 1)

It's not only the various components of an argument upon which agreement must be reached it's also the weight or relative importance of each of those constants, variables, facts, and the relationship of each to each other comprising the arguments.

Of course that is assuming one of the parties in the discussion haven't played the "there is no alternative" card. When that happens all you are left with is a shouting match.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Variable Weight (none / 0)

Both sides have played that card. But only because they each have an underlying assumption that is absolute.

On the green corner, that the risks of nuclear are unquantifible; on the black and yellow corner, that energy consumption is non-negotiable.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Variable Weight (none / 0)

agree. What I find really interesting is their absolutes have necessary consequences that, somehow, are never acknowledged.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Variable Weight (none / 0)

Each side accuses the other of being death-wishers and claims that their underlying assumption is critical for species survival.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:20:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Variable Weight (none / 0)

Why do I suddenly have the feeling that I just got a color assigned? (What color do scientific minded people have anyway?)

To clear this up, energy consumption is of course negotiable, and so are risks. Ultimately, everybody will weight convenience against risk, and the customary way to do that is to quantify both and compare costs. Now please try an honest calculation and then decide what electricity you want to buy. (I did. And I'm slightly angry at the black/yellow color.)

by ustenzel on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 08:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Variable Weight (none / 0)

Because you took a rhetorical device literally. In fact, since you insist that your position is based on cost-benefit analysis I doubt the label applies to you.

Personally, I reject the idea that everything is quantifiable in the same units and thus comparable. There isn't a linear order of all possibilities. But we still have to make choices and trade-offs.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 08:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (4.00 / 2)

Uhm, do I really need to lecture about the concept of "ad hominem attacks"? An ad hominem would be if I rejected an argument because of who said it, which is not what I'm doing. I'm rejecting the argument itself first, and then decide that whoever said it is stupid/has ulterior motives/was bought by corporate interest/whatever.

Look at the facts again: the pressure in a reactor cannot rise high enough to launch the vessel, whatever happens. The guys at anti-atom.de should be able to see that, but they claim the opposite. Why? Hm, because they are lying scum, it seems.

Or take Ms. Caldicott, who wrote that French nuke operators cooled their plants with garden hoses in the last hot summer (just one of her many wrong statements). Plainly ridiculous. Why is that? Because she's technically illiterate.

Peter Battie has been identified by Rod Adams as a "smoking gun" that coal interest are behind opposition to nuclear power in Australia. There's no doubt he is paid by the coal industry. I could use that fact to reject his arguments or at least cast doubt on them, but actually I didn't.

Well, and then there's Greenpeace. That's where it gets personal. I flipped when I read in BUND magazine (not Greenpeace, only a similar German organisation) that Chernobyl had already killed 125.000 people by 1996 without even citing sources. This number is based on a mistranslation and they should know that, but they still repeat this completely wrong number, continually embellishing it. Why? Because they need to talk people into a bad conscience to get more donations. They are greedy, lying scum.

Can you see the flow of the logic now? Even if not, I still reject their nonsense on the ground that it's nonsense. Beyond that, I also take the liberty to call idiots idiots.

by ustenzel on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 08:05:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Beyond that, I also take the liberty to call idiots idiots.

And what do you hope to acheive by that?

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 09:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you there (none / 0)

Let me answer that by asking another question:

What could possibly be achieved by pretending that idiots have a functional brain? Whatever you come up with, is that desirable?

by ustenzel on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 10:07:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 1)

The net present value of storing nuclear "waste" (actually used and still useful fuel) is higher than that of storing coal waste (ashes). The expected value of nuclear accidents is higher than the value of the side effects of the normal burning of coal. The large negative value of CO2 emissions isn't even considered. (Higher of course means negative, but lower in magnitude.)

If there was rational evaluation of adverse effects, people would be rallying against coal. They aren't. This debate isn't rational, it's driven by misinformation and hidden agendas.

by ustenzel on Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 at 07:37:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wind Shill (4.00 / 7)

can you get both sides of that debate to face the same direction and set up a wind farm there?

by HiD on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:12:21 AM EST

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (none / 1)

The problem with relying on renewables is that there just isn't enough energy available in densely-populated European countries. See http://www.withouthotair.com for how to do the sums. In the UK, per capita energy consumption is about 120 kWh per day. Without deep offshore wind turbines or photovoltaic arrays covering 10% of land surface (both very costly), renewables can't deliver more than about 70% of this. The limitations are set by basic physics, not by technology: there just isn't enough onshore wind or tidal energy available to be harnessed. Even less in countries less well-endowed with wind and tidal resources than the UK.

If you reject nuclear energy, the only sustainable alternatives are to cut total energy consumption in Europe by something of the order of 50%, or to rely on coal with carbon capture.

by paulm on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:58:17 AM EST

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (none / 0)

That is a point I keep raising but I just don't have any figures to go by. How much can each mode of energy generation produce, in Europe?

In any case, the UK is also about twice as densely populated as the EU average.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:01:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes you do (none / 0)

have figures to go by...on ET.

That's for the EU in 2004. Check my March 9 diary from last year to confirm that it is for EU-25...

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

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes you do (none / 1)

what we're discussing here is what is the maximum possible capacity of renewables, not currently installed capacity

by paulm on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:22:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (none / 1)

David Mackay's online book at www.withouthotair.com shows you how to do the calculations for yourself.

The key renewable sources are tidal pools and wind (mostly offshore) - UK and Ireland are much better endowed than other European countries.

by paulm on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (none / 0)

Any renewables seem to be related to the energy from the Sun, except perhaps tidal energy. How big portion of the energy flux from the Sun can we "immediately" employ?

In a sense, the fossil fuel is "slow" Sun energy - they start to be renewable on millenia scale.

Nuclear (and fussion) energy is almost the only one independent of the Sun. But do we have a limited supply of resources for it? How much our energy demand can rise?

Besides, how much reliable and safe it is with expectedly raising temperatures? Will we need to change our ethics and living styles anyway, even with nuclear plants satisfying a stabilized demand?

by das monde on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (none / 0)

Limited nuclear resources? Well, uranium and thorium are quite plentiful and in a sense could be considered renewable. We probably have fission fuel for at least a billion years: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

As for the safety, what do you mean? Nuclear plants need a heat sink (as does every thermal power plant), but they don't care much if it is at 30° or 32°, so global warming will certainly not put nuke plants out of order.

by ustenzel on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 at 10:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (4.00 / 5)

and when you look at what's going on around you here in europe, i can honestly say that 50% of the activity looks sacrificable to me.

all those filthy trucks carrying shit people don't need, all those uninsulated houses..

instead of expecting renewables to power the whole wasteful shebang, i think quality of life would improve, without going retro.

it just needs to be better organised.

if the nuclear industry had a track record of truthfulness, one might find it easier to swallow the claims of safety.

as it stands i think its lunatic to believe the 'french model' (even if it as safe as claimed) could scale worldwide.

it's the kind of obvious a child or any so-called primitive would understand, but 'educated adults'....

if insurance companies were stupid, they wouldn't make the profits they do.

and if nuclear really was 'too cheap to meter' as they once promised, then they wouldn't need such treasury-sucking subsidies, would they?

how can you monetise radiation damage?

if a hundredth of the obscene amounts spent on subsidising, protecting, and cleaning up up after nuclear power had been spent on conservation, we wouldn't be in this pickle today.

coal is awful, and should be phased out yesterday, but at least if a coal plant melts down, it doesn't do what chernobyl did.

anything less than conservation and renewables is continuing to feed the beast, and look where that took us.

we in europe should be setting a much better example, pointing to asia and america to excuse our waste is not ok.

neither is pointing at coal as reason to go nuke.

that sucking sound....your civil rights if we take the left-hand path on this one.

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How can we talk rationally about nuclear energ (none / 0)

The problem with relying on renewables is that there just isn't enough energy available in densely-populated European countries.

That sounds unlikely to me. Denmark has already rached a point where more than 100% of its needs are covered by wind alone. Spain reached 27% very recently.

Granted, that was just at one instant in time, and sustaining such numbers over long period on a reliable basis would require more wind turbines, but I find it pretty unlikely that there is not enough room to put enough wind farms around.

Ugliness/integration in the landscape is a factor, but it's unlikely to be an obstacle.

And that's before tapping offshore (which is still more expensive, currently).

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