![Ansel%20Adams,%201984[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ansel20adams2019841.jpg?quality=83)
Go back and re-watch Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth from 2006 and you’ll find that he never once voices the word “nuclear” although there is a long visual scene of a nuclear warhead exploding and the subsequent mushroom cloud filling the screen. Early AGW enthusiasts never seemed to acknowledge that if fossil fuels were the problem, nuclear power would be the solution that would work.
But now it seems environmentalists are being told that nuclear power is not so bad after all. The current movie, Pandora’s Promise (http://pandoraspromise.com/), has as its major theme that nuclear power and radiation are not so scary, really. This is of course true, reiterating arguments that pro-nuclear advocates have been making for 70 years.
The selling point is that nuclear power will not lead to global climate change. Another webpage from the Breakthrough Institute is entitled Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear (http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/liberals-and-progressives-for-nuclear/). Quoting such luminaries as Bill Gates and Richard Branson, it argues for the coming “Atomic Age,” again, because of the “urgency of climate change.” Even Al Gore (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/) seems to be slyly acknowledging nuclear’s possible role.
As a long-suffering nuclear engineer, I have to ask (in a conservative webzine, American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/nuclear_powers_new_friends.html), is it in nuclear power’s best interest to make public alliance with the climate change crowd? I say no, citing the growing awareness of the “tells” on display, i. e. signs of fraud, we see documented here on WUWT and elsewhere. “Lie down with the dogs and get up with fleas” is my warning. Of course, any rational environmentalist SHOULD embrace nuclear just on its relative conventional pollutant profile and would be welcome to say kind words about nuclear – just don‘t ask that the support be reciprocated.
Yet, others in the nuclear power community disagree (http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2013/08/progressives-for-nuclear-progress.html#.Uf7Ly23pySr) (and here (http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/)) and embrace our new Best Friends Forever (BFFs). Many are sincere believers in climate change themselves, as I had been until I read the 2001 IPCC technical reports. Others just seemed hopeful that we might no longer be the pariahs of polite (PC) company.
Yet, my simple question is, should nuclear reactor manufacturers like Toshiba, General Electric, Areva, Bill Gates, Hitachi, Rosatom, etc publicly advertise that their products can help prevent climate change? Besides the expectation of further public trust deterioration for climate change, one has to look at the companies that would buy a nuclear power reactor. Almost without exception, they also have substantial fossil fuel powered generation assets.
Plus, environmentalists, like revolutionaries, have a habit of changing their minds as to who was good and who was bad. Probably the most infamous event was when Ansel Adams resigned from the board of directors of the Sierra Club over his support of nuclear power (http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/).
The Sierra Club had been generally pro-nuclear although they could oppose specific plants on specific grounds, like the Bodega Bay nuke to be build about 400 yards from the surface trace of the San Andreas fault in the bay‘s headlands. To this day, the foundation diggings are called “the hole in the Head.” But a tide of anti-nuclear feeling swept over the organization and Adams gave up his seat on the board in 1971 due to the ill will and back biting.
My take-away lesson is political winds change, and so do the policies of environmental groups. I’d rather nuclear power not get involved.
In agreement with RACookPE1978…
‘Neo-nuclear’ should be modular, mass-produced off-site, small-scale plants with passive cooling, sited below ground near the areas where the electricity will be used. Besides the passive cooling, another selling point for ‘new’ designs is the possibility of using thousands of tons of nuclear waste as fuel, converting waste with a half-life of hundreds of thousands to just hundreds of years.
Matthew R Marler says:
August 7, 2013 at 8:43 am
“Politics makes strange bedfellows,” as everyone already knows. Take your allies where you can find them. If you shun potential allies because you disagree with some of their motives, then you act alone.
No, not in this case anyway. When you ally yourself with liars and crooks, in a very real sense you condone those acts, and soon enough, begin committing them yourself. Would you really want the Mob as your “friend”?
Modern reactors can passively dump waste heat using evaporation, convection and gravity. The AP1000 design takes this even a step further with some of its design features. In case of a loss of all power and pumping capacity, the steam rising in the containment area will condense on a metal cap which also acts as a heat sink transferring the heat outside of the containment area. In prolonged operation in this mode in hot weather, additional cooling water can be applied to the outside of the cap through things such as an ordinary fire hose spraying on the top of the containment structure. The condensed water runs back down the sides of the containment structure where it is kept on a reservoir/ Water level is maintained in the bath surrounding the inner containment with float mechanical valves using the same principal as your toilet tank and the water gravity feeds that bath when the water level drops.
No external power and no human intervention is required to dump waste heat for two weeks. After that, depending on local weather conditions, external cooling might be required on the containment heat sink. The emergency cooling system operates mechanically by natural forces so nothing can be accidentally disabled as was done at Three Mile Island.
Dear Steve P (at 9:21AM, 8/7/13),
Just wanted to affirm that, YES, clean coal, natural gas, and petroleum are still in abundant supply and SHOULD BE USED. The main point of the discussion (with many very good sub-points being made, too) is not that we should now replace coal, etc… with nuclear power, but that in advocating for the option of nuclear power (for the places and times when it is or becomes as or more cost-effective than other power sources) we need not and should not join with the pro-CAGW crowd.
CAGWers promote nuclear power on the false premise that human CO2 causes global climate change. Thus, to join them in advocating for nuclear power is to incidentally support CAGW.
Your ally for Truth in Science,
Janice
I have to agree with Mr. Cobb although I limited myself to just opposing reciprocity.
Ad hominem arguments will arise even if nuclear doesn’t endorse climate change in return. If the fraudsters are praising nuclear, won’t nuclear be tainted, to some degree? Climate changers are free to endorse whatever fix they will. But ask yourself, did Lyndon LaRouche’s endorsement of nuclear contribute to public support?
As to small reactors, there is still a VERY strong economy of scale for larger new reactors – I’ve been involved in its precise calculation. How small modular reactors are going to reverse that is a big question in my mind, especially as regulations have yet to be written to govern them.
BTW, I erred in saying in my comment that I had linked to Ansel Adam’s Wiki page – it was to the Adams Gallery’s posted bio of Adams.
Ms. Moore – thank you for your compliments.
Ok, simmer down. TEPCO screwed up and set the bar far higher than they could possibly meet. Nearly all the water TEPCO has stored on site has very low contamination levels, in fact, the contamination levels are so low that it can be legally dumped to sea with no consequence. Actually some of it even meets standards for drinking. But TEPCO said they would remove ALL TRACES of contamination which may prove impossible since the dirt in Japan (and the rest of the world) still contains traces of contamination from the 1945 bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as contamination from atmospheric testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s. So TEPCO has painted itself into a corner here. So far the reporting on the Fukushima ground water is much like the global warming reporting. For example:
They are also very keen on not giving you the numbers you really need to make a decision. For example, Reuters says:
Tepco said on Friday that a cumulative 20 trillion to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium had probably leaked into the sea since the disaster.
But they don’t tell you how many liters of water that is so you can gauge how contaminated that water might be. Water with 60,000 becquerels per liter of tritium is allowed to be dumped to sea without treatment. One well reported 11,000 becquerels of cesium-134 per liter and 22,000 becquerels of cesium-137 per liter of water which is well above the normal standard of about 90 that is allowed to be routinely dumped without any special permit but interestingly the well right next to the turbine building where the water is being injected to dilute the contaminated water there was showing only 0.74 becquerels per liter between July 8 and 9, and cesium-134 rose slightly to 0.50 becquerels from 0.49 becquerels. So it doesn’t appear to be coming from the turbine building. But in any case, diluting the water with sea water would make it safe for release. An observation point over 50 meters in shore from the beach shows 310 becquerels per liter of cesium 134 which is not massive contamination. It exceeds the standard for inconsequential release by about 6x but that is still harmless for short term exposure. 60 becquerels per liter contaminated water could be released day in, day out without any special notice.
This is an attempt to create a news story by again creating fear in people. In fact, in a health report done by the UN, the greatest health impact from Fukushima is likely to be psychological due to reporting such as this that greatly inflates fear in people’s minds by creating an irrational fear of any radiation. What is ironic is that anyone fleeing Japan during the Fukushima event got more radiation exposure on the flight back to the US than they would have got staying right where they were in Japan.
You do more damage to your body during moderate exercise than these low doses of radiation do. In fact, the damage is done in exactly the same way — through creation of free radicals in the cells. So take an alpha-lipoic acid supplement and relax.
Aesop had a fable about scorpions, wherein the scorpion drowned itself by stinging its victim to death simply because it was his nature to do so.
Sane citizens and businesses will recognize how that fable correlates to modern-day environmentalism.
This is a topic dear to my heart, but I can’t afford the time to read it all (apologies).
Years ago, some operations analysts at the aerospace company where I work were looking into the idea of shooting radioactive waste into the sun. They thought it was a perfect solution, notwithstanding the fact that it is more difficult to do that than shoot it out of the solar system, or that there would be launch failure risks. I pointed this out.
“So what’s your solution, then?” they asked. I took it under advisement and came back with my recommendation: “Just haul it out into the middle of the ocean and dump it overboard.” They were scandalized. But, if you go through the known chemical composition of seawater, it turns out that every cubic kilometer of seawater (and there are a LOT of cubic kilometers out there) already contains over TWO THOUSAND TONNES of transuranic elements in solution…along with 1 gram of radium! (which is actually quite a bit of radium) Someone explain to me how such dumping could change anything. They walked away, scratching their heads. Nature is radioactive. Live with it.
P.S. One of my anticipated Fun Things To Do is purchase a surplus civil defense Geiger counter. Then I can go to my friends’ houses and show them how dangerous their granite kitchen countertops are. (Granite is composed of quartz, feldspar, and pitchblende. Pitchblende shows up as the black specs in the granite matrix. It is also uranium ore!) Need I point out how close and frequently we interact with kitchen counter tops?
Ok, lets put this into perspective, shall we? We are talking about some leakage of contaminated water that doesn’t appear to be all THAT contaminated. The US exploded over 200 nuclear bombs in the atmosphere or in the ocean (that, obviously, does not include the over 800 underground tests). And that is just the US, it doesn’t include tests by other countries. If someone were to detonate even a 10kt device in the sea today you would probably be led to believe that babies would be born with six eyes as a result.
We have a population that has allowed itself to be indoctrinated with an irrational fear of radioactivity. We have a so-called “environmental” lobby that is nothing short of a gang of bullies who have managed to cow otherwise intelligent people. We need to stand up to these people and tell them to take their dogma and stick it.
I grew up in the 1960’s. I ate a lot of tuna sandwiches. My hair didn’t fall out at 8 years of age. One is at more risk from mercury in the seafood than from radiation. My kids weren’t born with six eyes and their mother grew up directly downwind of the National Test Site. Her mother is still alive, too. My kids have frolicked in the dust of Northeastern Nevada and Southwestern Utah and loved it. Please, stop the irrational fear mongering. Yes, we do need to prevent dangerous levels of contamination but this nonsense around what we have seen so far from nuclear accidents is just plain insane.
Michael J. Dunn says: August 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm “Granite is composed of quartz, feldspar, and pitchblende. ” Perhaps you mean mica rather than uraninite?
Mr. Somsel, you’re welcome. My pleasure!
Reply to Richard s courtney,
Sir, I find it quite enlightening that you tolerate on this thread so many undocumented assertions, in particular those comments written by “Crosspatch”.
Hypocrite.
Where is your faux righteous indignation? To quote you, “this is a science blog! You must provide citations!”
Thank you for the confirmation of your utter hypocrisy.
Thanks, Roger, you just made me laugh… 🙂
Kinda sucks seeing people post real data, right? Because those real numbers kinda blow away the hyperinflated arguments of the anti-nuclear crowd…
Roger Sowell:
re your post addressed to me at August 7, 2013 at 3:15 pm.
If you dispute the clear and accurate data from Crosspatch then ask him to justify it (I could so I am sure he can). And it is NOT hypocritical of me to respect the data Crosspatch provides when I could substantiate that data myself.
It seems that your accusation of me being hypocritical is an example of you displaying pschological projection. You post falsehoods and repeat them after they have been refuted by several people (e.g. your false claim that I have made statements in contradiction of the Second Law of thermodynamics). And you make unsubstantiated assertions then have the gall to call on me to defend you when knowledgeable people such as Crosspatch point out why your assertions are ridiculous. Then you call me a hypocrite for not defending you when Crosspatch states the truth which contradicts your assertions!
Please have the good grace to stop wasting space on WUWT threads with your nonsense. I feel sure that any kindergarten and SkS would welcome your twaddle, so there are places where you could peddle your rubbish without being the nuisance you are here.
Richard
@richard Courtney — finally read your generously gallant post concerning a certain mixed-up person and myself on another thread. THANK YOU!
The biggest thing in favour of nuclear power is not that it produces little or no CO2, but that its energy density is orders of magnitude higher than any other fuel. The whole discussion about CO2 and climate change/global warming is irrelevant when it comes to nuclear power. During its whole history, mankind has progressed from less dense to higher density energy sources. Now the environmentalist movement strives to go the other way. From nuclear back to coal, to wind, to solar, to wood, to chicken manure, to water wheels. If you want to make the case for nuclear power, make it on one issue alone: energy density.
I got the data I produced on contamination from both the Reuters reporting, which I assumed came from government sources as well as previous reportage on the subject which had information on allowable release contamination. The data on number of nuclear tests is widely known and available from several sources but this document might prove useful: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/nuclear/nv209nar.pdf
Is there something in particular that one finds issue with?
For information on radiation damage to cells, one might have a look here:
http://blogs.fas.org/sciencewonk/2013/02/back-to-the-basics-how-radiation-affects-our-health/
Also, recent research has shown that potential health threats from radiation may not be cumulative, particularly for small doses of radiation, as we had earlier supposed. Exposure to low doses may do no more damage to the body than moderate to vigorous exercise. Stuff like this is around if you look for it:
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.long
And finally, there are several examples of places where natural fission reactions existed on Earth. The half life of U-235 is 703.8 million years. That means that 700 million years ago, natural uranium had about twice as much U235 as it does now.(1.44% vs today’s 0.72%) 1.4 billion years ago it had four times as much (2.88%), and 2.1 billion years ago it had 8 times as much (5.75%) So going back about 1.5 billion years ago and more, natural uranium had about the same enrichment as current day reactor fuel. A natural reactor would work something like:deposit of uranium gets wet. Water moderates the neutrons and slows them down and a reaction starts. That causes heat which boils off the water and the reaction stops. More water seeps in, reactor starts again. 2 billion years ago Earth was awash in fission products because we had basically open air nuclear reactors running. Life has actually evolved systems to protect itself from radiation though it takes a rather significant dose to trigger those mechanisms. Did you know that people living in an apartment complex made from concrete that was contaminated by Cobalt 60 and gave them a much higher dose than allowed had a much LOWER incidence of cancer than the average population?
But anyway, example of natural nuclear reactors:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/all-natural-all-nuclear
We will always have a need for hydrocarbons to make plastics, lubrication, fuel for some applications and in the future it may even use as feed stock for food products. We could say it’s just a good idea not to burn our future instead of agreeing with the Green crowd. We both want to go to the same place and that’s clean cheap reliable power and while we have different reasons, they both should result in nuclear power.
@Dena Also paints, pigments, fertilizers, and fabrics come from hydrocarbons. Sure, I agree, we shouldn’t be burning those things up to produce energy when we have a nearly limitless supply already available if we recycle nuclear fuel. All the fuel we have used to date could be recycled and 90% of it put right back into a reactor without another ton of it being mined. All of that DU lying around on the ground in Iraq would be reactor fuel. We could have dirt cheap electricity the the cronies of the politicians just won’t have that.
Watch your back with that crowd is all I’ll say. Jim Hansen is stridently in favor of nukes, but the rank & file of the climate movement remains NIMBY earth-shoe types who will turn on a dime. Longterm waste handling issues haven’t been adequately addressed, and I think the era of the boiling water reactor are drawing to a close. Unless something else (thorium reactors) comes along, nukes are cooked, post-Fukashima. Sad but true.
Richard S Courtney,
No, it was the First Law of Thermodynamics that you failed, but then Thermo is not your best subject now, is it? Confusing, aren’t they?
Such a hypocrite, and in full view of all here.
You should be ashamed.
Here is an interesting incident to consider on how dangerous intermediate level radioactivity really is. How about building concrete contaminated with Cobalt 60 used in building apartments, schools, stores, businesses… in a development in Taiwan with people living in them continuously for up to 20 years?? Yup, and when the radiation was discovered they actually did a relatively complete study on the people who lived there.
First link is general information. Second link is the study, and the third link is more information on Hormesis.
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/taiwan-cobalt-60-apartmt-04.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/
crosspatch,
ya need to add my links to yours!! Gives a fairly complete picture of how overhyped the radiation scare is!!! 8>)
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/taiwan-cobalt-60-apartmt-04.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/
There is a fusion plant being built in France right now at a cost of $22bil. Promise? Cheap and plentiful power, no waste, no GHG emissions. I can understand why it’s being built in France.