Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Hindu reports on a fascinating top level debate occurring at a conference in India, between politicians and energy experts. The energy experts are struggling to understand why nuclear power is not the favoured Western option for reducing CO2 emissions.
… Pointing out that countries such as Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria were either committed to closing down nuclear plants or opposing nuclear renaissance, he [Governor P. Sathasivam] stressed the need to formulate a new approach between nuclear enthusiasts and opponents. A former Ambassador and governor for India at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Mr. Sreenivasan said India, China, and Russia were the only countries enthusiastic about nuclear power today.
Striking a different stand, Ashok Chauhan, Director (Technical), Nuclear Power Corporation of India, said the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions posed a greater threat to the world than nuclear energy. “In fact, nuclear energy offers a solution to the threat posed by greenhouse gases that are responsible for climate change and rise in sea level.”
…
Mr. Sreenivasan, who chaired the session, pointed out that the Paris climate change summit had not endorsed nuclear energy as a solution to the problem caused by GHG emissions.
I suspect it won’t take the Indian energy experts long to conclude that Western opposition to nuclear power is irrational, which will likely lead them to question the legitimacy of other things Western “experts” have told them.
Former NASA GIS director James Hansen, and a handful of other leading climate alarmists, have repeatedly stated, that the only plausible means of reducing CO2 emissions, is a vast expansion of nuclear capacity.
But as the Indian energy experts will quickly discover, pointing out the bleeding obvious to green fanatics rapidly leads to bullying and name calling – even if you are James Hansen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Because the Green movement are anarchist they must destroy the World to then rebuild it in their image. Agenda 21 is alive and well.
Well just look at all that smoke coming out of those two monster chimneys, and make up your own mind !!
Are those things supposed to be circular elliptic hyperboloids of one sheet ??
g
George, you need a sarc tag for some of your readers.
George, no doubt Gary is right, but THIS reader loved it. lololol. Great writing. I can “hear” old Grampa Greener shouting that as he bangs his cane on the front porch for emphasis.
I think those are cooling towers, emitting water vapor. Photos like that are always used to scare people.
And look how many people die every year from nuclear!
It is way to dangerous.
I think other folk’s need for some semblance of a sense of humor exceeds my need to expand my texting vocabulary.
So what is a sarc tag ??
All of my Hanes underwear is completely tagless. One of the great merchandising discoveries of the 20/21st centuries.
No more am I under the threat of arrest for cutting the tags off my unmenchionables.
g
Dang, I give up. I’ve enlarged that image as much as I can and I’ve looked at every portion of it and I can not find any “monster chimneys” with smoke coming out of them.
Are we all looking at the same photo?
/sarc
hyperboloids … Darn that is twice today I’ve had to look words up while reading this site! I learn more and expand my vocabulary (or refresh it in this case, I’m old and forgetting my high school math).
A sarc tag is something like “/sarc” or “/s” for the shorthand version. None of us took it literally but some warmunists have been know to visit this site and might add you to their mailing list without it.
[The mods want to know if a hyperboloid is more (or less) dangerous than a lowboloid, compared to, for example, the average speed and position of the typical hemorrhoid? .mod]
TRM,
I’m pretty sure hyperboloids are referenced here.
Pay attention, you’ll learn something.
We all know that water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so maybe they included the image to remind us of that. \sarc
Mods @ur momisugly TRM 3:43
George seems to have seen a smoking hemorrhoid, or has one – seems a bit grumpy and looking at his Hanes.
Now that we’ve lowered the level … moving on.
It is not smoke, but steam. And they are not chimneys, but cooling towers.
Ellipse of bliss, converge, O lips divine!
the product o four scalars is defines!
Cyberiad draws nigh, and the skew mind
Cuts capers like a happy haversine.
~Stanislaw Lem
Two most sublime achievements of the human race are, the harnessing of nuclear energy… and our ability to mention unmentionables.
“””””…..
TRM
January 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm
hyperboloids … Darn that is twice today I’ve had to look words. …..”””””
TRM, In a Cartesian ( x, y, z ) co-ordinate system, the general second order equation would be:
ax^2+by^2+cz^2+dxy+eyz+fzx+gx+hy+iz+j = 0
That describes a host of three dimensional surfaces, which have a variety of two dimensional plane cross sections, all of which are conic sections.
For example leaving out most of the terms, one could have: ax^2+hy = 0 which would be a parabola. ax^2+by^2+j = 0 gives an ellipse, and so on.
For those cooling towers, we might take height as the z axis. Then x,y plane sections would be ellipses, and in this case actually circles. Any plane containing the z axis has a hyperbola as a cross section (usually). If you took that hyperbola and rotated it about any axis that lies in the z = 0, xy plane You would get two hyperboloidal surfaces, facing away fro m each other, that are mirror images of each other.
So you would have two “sheets” as they are called, and that particular object, would be a circular hyperboloid of two sheets. Now the circular section could be generalized into an ellipse, so it would become an elliptic hyperboloid of two sheets.
The cooling tower only has one sheet, so it is an elliptic hyperboloid of one sheet, with the ellipse being made into a circle.
If you take two equal sized hula hoops, and you connect them together with a host of equal length strings, so one hoop can hang from the other (horizontal hoops), you get a cylinder looking object, which actually is a very special limit case of a circular hyperboloid of one sheet.
Now if you rotate one of the hoops relative to the other, you end up with the common basket trash can shape, which is like our cooling tower. So you can actually draw a bunch of perfectly straight lines that lie twisted on the surface of that hyperboloidal shape. If you continue to twist the hoops relative to each other; so long as the strings are longer than the diagonal of the hula hoop, you will find after a 180 degree twist, that all the strings now meet at a point ion the z axis, and the hyperboloid has now degenerated into a perfect cone.
So both a circular cylinder, and a circular cone, are just special limit cases of a circular elliptic hyperboloid of one sheet.
The weirdest of all of those general second order surfaces, actually has opposite sign curvatures for different cross sections, and the sections are a mix of hyperbolas and parabolas.
The most common implementation of such a shape is an ordinary horse saddle.
Surfaces that switch sign of the curvature as you rotate around one of the axes, will have at least one direction where the sign switches from positive to negative curvature, so it must go through zero curvature, and be a straight line in that direction, at that point. Saddles are called “anticlastic” surfaces. surfaces that always have the center of curvature on only one side of the surface, are called “synclastic” surfaces.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out which (a) through (j) need to be non zero to get a saddle surface.
G<g
No, you have it exactly backwards. An anarchist wants NO LAWS (and thus no one controls them). I communist or dictator wants complete control…that’s where the Greens are parked.
I don’t get hung up on Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, etc. I look at the number of laws required. An Anarchist is at the end of the scale where 0 laws would be…that is, personal freedom is the utmost utopia, all others be damned. (Murder might even be OK in this world!)
The Communists and the Dictators want complete control over all individuals…for the greater good, of course.
“An Anarchist is at the end of the scale where 0 laws would be…that is, personal freedom is the utmost utopia, all others be damned.”
And devil take the hindmost.
Completely agree! See my post of 1:24pm – same idea, but it seems few here understand it.
If there are no laws, how can they prevent people from doing the things they hate, like making money and burning fossil fuels?
Anarchists have no idea what the hell they want…they just like being world class a-holes, near as I can discern.
Anarchy sounds good in theory and in a few agit-prop novels; but in practice it always goes very badly, since something always emerges to fill the vacuum. The two best examples of Anarchy in existence today are Libya and most of Syria, and that’s enough said. That’s what anarchy always turns into, whenever it pops up.
Early feudalism was basically anarchy, where whoever was the local strong man gathered up a few hundred tough guys who had nothing to do and used them to make everyone call him “Lord”, and agree that he owned all of their stuff. There’s always some guy or some group that is waiting to seize power the instant he gets the chance.
Iceland had an effective form of anarchy for a bit over 100 years.
On the flip side, all forms of govt tend towards totalitarianism over time.
@ur momisugly Bruckner8
An anarchist doesn’t want/need RULERS not “no laws”.
Every society needs laws , the difference is how much and what laws.
Also anarchism is not the same as chaos , as some comment supposes.
Basically , they don’t want a ruling class , which will get corrupt over time
and seize power for their own and their cronies benefit instead of
the people they are supposed to represent. Obvious examples are dictatorships ,
our Western ‘democracies’ are ‘milder’ examples.where one is allowed to choose their dictators
for the next couple of years and then shut up and do as you’re told because hey , you chose us
to rule over you remember. (There is a huge difference between the theory and practise we see today.)
The people themselves should make the laws and decide how much tax they pay and what to
use it for , then appoint persons for a limited time to implement those decisions.
Disadvantage of anarchism is that it only works on a small scale and is only possible if
the people are spiritually mature enough.
The same could be said about a democracy , which can only properly function if you have
well informed voters and no mass manipulation by the people who are (really) in control.
It’s not “0 laws” and “personal freedom is the utmost utopia, all others be damned. (Murder might even be OK in this world!)” it’s more ,do as much as you like while considering other persons freedom and causing no harm (or at least as little as possible) to others and your environment.
(that’s where the spiritually mature bit comes in)
So murder is definitely NOT ok ( especially not on the grand scale even our Western ‘democracies’ engage in ,which we call war)
“The Communists and the Dictators want complete control over all individuals…for the greater good, of course.”, the same can be said about Western democracies , only the bars of the cage you’re in are (until now) less obvious/visible.
.
Thinkaboutit: “no rulers” and “no laws” are functionally equivalent, cuz if you don’t have a ruling class (er, law enforcement), then you don’t have/need laws. You’re describing a system where “can’t we all just get along?” reigns supreme, where everyone has shared values and expectations. I can see where that wouldn’t need laws, but it actually does…they’re just not written down…they’re built into the value system, and violators *are* smacked down by elders, if not “official rulers.” That’s a very communal system, and as you said, only works in small numbers.
OK, back to the real world, where written laws are a necessity. But how many? Every single law is a limit on freedom.
Thinkaboutit January 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm said
“The people themselves should make the laws and decide how much tax they pay and what to
use it for , then appoint persons for a limited time to implement those decisions.”
It is not surprising that “the people, themselves” are not inclined, on the whole, to spend their lives discussing the minute details of laws.
For this reason, “the people” delegate enthusiastic members of their society to, not only implement, but also write and enact the laws that might be deemed necessary. Few of us are really happy with the results but it’s only when a lot of us get pissed off, that the situation descends into anarchy.
“Anarchism”, on the other hand, is but a semantic delusion; a childish attempt to sound grown-up.
Thinkaboutit January 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm
You want to read MacDonough’s Song by Rudyard Kipling before enshrining what “the people” want. You also want to keep in mind why the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights appended. It isn’t to protect “the people.” “The people” by and large are as dictatorial and rabid as any individual dictator in history. Democracy is no cure-all for the problems of the planet. All you need is two groups of humourless egotists (e.g. the Tea Party and Leftists) who both “know” what’s right and disagree with each other and you have a problem. We have loads of small minded, special interests, all in conflict. Every single one claims that they “have rights” over the behaviour of others.
Duster,
The Bill of Rights was indeed amended to the Constitution to protect the rights of the people and states from the possible (now real) excesses of a too powerful central regime. All the amendments mention the people, individual persons, property owners, the accused or convicted. Its literal last words are “the people”:
Amendment I: Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II: Right to keep and bear arms
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III: Conditions for quarters of soldiers
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV: Right of search and seizure regulated
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V: Provisons concerning prosecution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Amendment VI: Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII: Right to a trial by jury
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX: Rule of construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: Rights of the States under Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founders did in fact fear mob rule, and tried to prevent it through various means in the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights was added at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists to ensure against tyrannical abuses of power against the people by the new national regime.
Gloateus is correct in regards to fascism vs. socialism. Both are just variations of statism and belong next to each other on any political spectrum. They both demand full state control of the people and economy, the differences are just in style. Socialists recommend state ownership of the means of production, fascists concede private ownership of economic factors but full state control of those, nonetheless.
It is a long-term fiction that fascism is a ‘right-wing’ philosophy foisted by the left since WWII. The only reason the fascists and communists of the time were at each other’s throats is because they each were afraid of the other muscling in on their racket; but ultimately it was the same racket.
They are not anarchists; they may romantically think themselves as such, but they are fascists.
In other words, they are run of the mill socialists.
I suppose in an Anarchist’s world; what was yours is now mine. Kind of a reverse socialism.
MarkW :
As usual, you have confused your terms.
As everybody knows, fascism and socialism are near opposite ends of the political spectrum but fascists like to pretend otherwise.
Robert of Ottawa correctly wrote
and you attempted to distort his accurate comment by writing
Substitute ‘libertarians’ for “socialists” and you would be right.
Richard
Greg, that is exactly how socialism works.
I see that Richard is still on that “everybody knows” kick. Despite the fact that he’s been proven wrong over and over and over again.
Just because everyone in the faculty lounge agrees with you, doesn’t make you right.
Richard,
You have that backwards. Fascism and socialism are both versions of the same disease, ie statism.
How on earth could libertarianism and fascism be the same thing? They are polar opposites. Same for socialism. Libertarianism puts its faith in free citizens. Fascism and socialism glorify the state over the liberties of the people, making them subjects.
Thinkaboutit,
Anarchy means without a leader. It is indeed possible to have laws without a leader. Many polities throughout human history have done so. To mention but one example, consider Judges, 18:1, “In those days there was no king in Israel:”. Many groups, such as American Indians, would appoint a war leader as needed, but get along fine under their customary laws and traditions the rest of the time. Iceland had its annual Alþingi without a leader in between meetings.
Enforcement of contracts and apprehending outlaws don’t require specialists until breaches of the law become too numerous for private individuals and posses to handle.
WWS,
Feudalism wasn’t anarchy. In theory and usually in practice, local lords (barons) held their fiefs from higher nobles (counts or earls and dukes), who in turn owed service and allegiance to the king. There were however often baronial revolts and civil wars, as during the Anarchy in England, when some lords refused to accept a queen and during the rebellion leading up to Magna Carta.
“”””…..
Gloateus Maximus
January 8, 2016 at 6:19 am
Richard,
You have that backwards. Fascism and socialism are both versions of the same disease, ie statism. …..”””””
I actually favor the Feudal system, as the perfect form of Government.
If I was making the rules, I would abolish ALL elective governing bodies below the County, or Shire, or whatever you want to call it.
And I would have that County governed by a board of supervisors or whatever you want to call them; say a total of 13 persons for example.
And all citizens of that County would get to vote for their selection of those 13 persons, they want on the county board of supervisors, all 13 of them.
So the supervisors represent the county, and not any local district, or subdivision of the county.
Those 13 persons, would be the ONLY persons in the entire known universe, and all those other parallel multiverses, who had the authority to tax me, and write laws (every word of those laws).
Naturally, they would make laws and tax me, to provide the necessary common county public services.
Maybe once a month or so, one of my County supervisors, would be designated to go to Sacramento, or you name it, to meet with the county supervisors of Orange County and Kern County and all the other counties in our State.
Those State meetings would decide among themselves how much money each county would be assessed to provide for common state public necessities like roads between Santa Clara County, and Kern County, and the others. So I have NO dealings of any kind with the State Government, nor they with me.
If my County Government doesn’t get a fair deal at the State level, my fellow County citizens and I will vote their a***** out and put in someone who can.
Maybe every six months, or maybe each quarter, My State government, will pick one of their number to go to Washington to meet with the other 56 State representatives, to decide on how much of the USA National Defense budget, the State of California deserves to pay.
I would have no dealings at all with the Federal Government, nor they with me.
And the United Nations could just go and pound sand as far as I am concerned.
All citizens should be able to directly vote into or out of office ANY person, who has any authority to tax them for anything.
Local governments and citizens (county) should take care of local problems first.
So bottoms up representation and taxation. Not this Obamination, where an incompetent nincompoop in Washington DC takes everybody’s money from them, and then parcels it out to whomever they personally favor.
And the sooner we get rid of ALL bureaus, and all bureaucrats, the better.
Every word of every law or statute or regulation should be written only by duly elected members of the appropriate level of government. NO non elected person should be able to write so much as one word of any law or regulation.
Well I’m not holding my breath.
George,
My county (population about 76,000; area c. 3200 sq mi) has three commissioners, which IMO are plenty. The sheriff is also elected, plus some judges.
Why have a panel of 13 elected officials make decisions about roads? Roads can be built and maintained in the same way that irrigation districts work. Let those who want the roads bond themselves to construct them and recoup the costs with tolls. For connections to roads outside the district, some volunteer coordination and professional advice might be needed, but that hardly justifies a large county, state and federal bureaucracy.
That government which governs least, governs best. Freedom lives where the government fears the people; tyranny reins were the people fear the government.
Most of the “problems” in Nature are political motivated to promote a political Agenda. The aim is to deny Western World available and cheap energy.
Western Environmentalists oppose nuclear energy for the same reason they oppose all forms of effective industrial-scale energy production, and indeed oppose industry as such, because they oppose capitalism, and at root they oppose human life. For a detailed look into environmentalists’ anti-human philosophy, from which all their other policies flow, I highly recommend the book, “Merchants of Despair” by Dr. Robert Zubrin. While not directly addressing global warming or nuclear power, it is an essential resource for understanding the environmentalist philosophy.
After Three Mile Island some starry-eyed zombies protested around Navy facilities near Seattle. Navy yard workers started sporting “More Nukes, Less Kooks” which I found rather droll.
And they are too mixed up (or possibly just too stoned) mentally to realize that, by being against everything, they are in effect voting for the status quo.
Well with some reservations I am in favor of utilizing the energy that powers the sun.
We humanoids have been doing that now for thousands of years, and in its modern form it is totally controllable. My reservations relate to suitable siting, and minimization of environmental disruption.
Day and night, the solar energy source is instantly adjustable for load factor, or it can be shut down completely. Turn on and turn off times are modest, and quite transparent to the end user.
Unfortunately a lot of places on earth are quite unsuitable for solar energy siting, and environmentalists are not in favor of it anywhere.
It has an added side benefit, in that instead of wasting water to further waste heat energy, the direct sun source energy can be used to preserve water supplies for use elsewhere.
No silly ! I didn’t say thermo-nuclear fusion. I mean the gravity suck that powers the sun automatically.
I have a particular soft spot for the Grand Coulee Gravitational Energy reactor myself, and also the Bonneville one on the Columbia River in Oregon.
Well there’s Boulder Dam as well I guess.
You can actually crank on just a thimble full of extra gravitational energy if the load varies a tiny amount.
But they should be sited off to the side of water ways, rather than smack in the middle of them.
Fishes gotta swim you know, not fly.
g
I like to call them Eco-Luddites.
Modern society is unnatural, and therefore scientific or technical progress that facilitates the prosperity of modern society is necessarily evil.
It applies to Nuclear power, GMOs, animal research, fracking, etc. They are anti-science and anti-progress at the core. They once called Chlorine the Devil’s element, even though cleanliness has contributed more to human health and longevity than all other advances combined.
Thanks KTM
I get what you are saying but I’d throw in “responsible use” into your pov.
I once used Cl on a nasty, not to go away “thingie” on a knuckle. I went full strength and put it on a bandage.
Well it got the “thingie” but didnt stop there … sooooo … lesson learned. Use dilute Cl. 🙂
Reblogged this on "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising… and commented:
I guess no one has told them about the World-Wide Wind Scam….
“The Merchants of Despair” by Robert Zubrin makes it clear why the greens oppose Nuclear Power (and Hydro Power). It has nothing to do with being green.
Why is this confusing? It’s the same fear driven politics that promotes the bogus science of CAGW.
As I recall, China’s plans as of a few years ago was for 500 nuclear plants by mid century, 1600 by the turn of the century. Greenies love wind and especially solar , because it seems so benign, irregardless of the millions of cases of skin cancer..
Wind and solar energy causes skin cancer??? Even more reason to hate it 😉
Sunlight is nuclear radiation.
So what?
It is not collected by lying in the sun.
Besides, it is filtered by the bulk of the sun and the atmosphere of the Earth.
It may start is nuclear radiation, but (virtually) none of what is emitted by the nuclear reactions in the sun’s core reaches us here.
The spectrum emitted by the sun would be unchanged if it was heated by some other source in the interior.
“””””…..
Tony
January 7, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Sunlight is nuclear radiation. …..””””
No it is not. The “light” part of it is all in your head for starters; but the radiation part of it is mostly atomic; virtually none of it that we use on earth comes from the nucleus.
Quickly now, where is your closest gamma ray power plant to your house ??
From its radiation spectrum, we can deduce that most of the sun radiation that we get is simply thermal radiation due to acceleration of electric charges.
G
Reasons:
1. Ignorance (of many voters about the safety of spent fuel storage) fueling irrational fears.
2. Ignorance promoted by the fear-mongering of other power generator industries using the irrationality of the anti-nukes to coerce Congress into anti-consumer, artificial, market restraints on nuclear power to prevent free market competition.
3. “Enemies within” our country, e.g., in the U.S., Obama and Ayers, et. al., who would like nothing more than to see the U.S. economy, thus, the U.S., fail.
As Dickens wrote in A Christmas Carol, while Want is a threat, Ignorance is the most dangerous to a free society.
GO, NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY!
***************************************
Excellent choice of topic, Mr. Worrall — nuclear power, now, is the KEY to freedom!
Ignorance is NOT a disease; we are ALL born with it.
It is stupidity that has to be taught; and these days, it is taught in the public schools starting in pre-kindergarten.
But I get your drift Janice.
G
Janice and George;
Exactly.
But for “Congress” read “many National Governments” and for “U.S. economy” read “World economy”.
I’m glad you get me, George, but, where did I say ignorance was a disease? Your all-caps “NOT” implies that I did. It is simply “without knowledge” (to make myself more clear).
Happy commenting O Top 5 Commenter! 🙂
(belated) Congratulations!
And as the saying goes, you can’t fix stupid.
If Con is the opposite of Pro, then congress is the opposite of progress.
“””””…… I’m glad you get me, George, but, where did I say ignorance was a disease? …..””””
Now where did I say that you said ignorance was a disease ?
I usually don’t say somebody said something, unless they specifically did say something.
It’s like Willis says. Quote me my words where you disagree with me. Or don’t go and disagree with me about something I didn’t ever say or claim to agree with.
Janice, I tend to use caps (sparingly) for accentuation; not confrontation. Some folks use Italics; some embolden, and some underline. My laptop has eight CPUs but no italics key, or bold key. It has a caps key which makes caps, and an alt key which makes nothing, as does the ctrl key.
esc does nothing; mebbe that’s the excuse me key. So I capitulate for accent.
At my sending end, it doesn’t sound any louder than uncaps.
And my software is using pretty much all of those eight CPUs most of the time, so I only get the dregs left over for WUWT. Yes it’s a number cruncher.
g
[The mods recommend the following be added to your control key:
Ctrl + C = Copy to the buffer
Ctrl + V = Paste (from the buffer)
Ctrl + X = Cut (into the buffer)
Ctrl + Z = Undo (what I just did)
Ctrl + Y = ReDo (what I just did)
Ctrl + – = Zoom (the current window) out
Ctrl + + = Zoom (the current window) in.
Ctrl + B = Format (what is selected) Bold
Ctrl + I = Format (what is selected) Italic
Oddly, Ctrl + N creates (1) a new screen, (2) a new message, (3) a new spreadsheet, (4) a new word document .mod
But, you’re right. Ctrl + M doesn’t do anything to Mike at all.
So, obviously, we need to see what Ctrl + J does to Janice. ]
I just want to make a slight correction, Janice. The commonly used term “SPENT fuel” is not much better than the incorrect term “waste fuel” The irradiated fuel is neither “spent” nor “waste”. It is merely fuel which carries a large burden of fission fragments which are neutron absorbents. Neutron economy is what makes reactors fission, so when fuel becomes more of a neutron scavenger than emitter – the fuel is changed out.
Irradiated fuel may be reprocessed, removing the fission fragments from the fissile fuel. It may also be used as fuel in reactors of a different type (higher neutron flux). Definitely not something we should throw away… unless recoverable. GK
Well, since your term for “spent fuel” goes on into a second paragraph, while it may be a more scientifically accurate term, it is less useful in conversation. Wouldn’t you agree? Maybe you have a two or three word string as a replacement suggestion? FFIF (Fission Fuel with Irradiated Fragments)? For the purposes of use in a current reactor used to generate electricity, it is spent, “spent fuel” seems perfectly adequate to me. But I’m not a nuclear scientist. 🙂 To the main topic, nuclear is an outstanding energy source, and I fully support proper development of nuclear derived grid power.
{FFFFFFF. Future Fortuitously Fertile Formerly Fissioned Fissile Fuel? .mod]
Thank you, G. Karst, for the education. While I did realize that “spent” is not a completely descriptive term for those rods, I thought (mistakenly, I guess!) I was using what is sort of an industry “term of art.” I’ve read about “spent fuel cannisters” for instance. I appreciate your taking the time to let me (and the rest of us) know!
Janice
maybe they’ll be a spinoff
WUWTNukePower ?
WUWTRad ?
WUWTThoriumPower ?
I’m pretty sure the spin machine is starting to gin up.
First real press I got was about 2 years ago thru a limited investor thing.
Got it again 6 months ago in a less limited recommendation.
Today I saw it in the NY Post.
Fertile ground for half truths, distortion and quality counter ideas like WUWT.
Jim A. – The correct term is “irradiated fuel” but the nomenclature is not as important as the reasons or concepts as to the why of it’s name. Look inward for more answers. GK
With nuclear you can’t have feed-in-tariffs, yieldcos, carbon trading. Much money to be made by setting up/making new financial instruments and markets.
Look at the billionaire financial people that are backing climate change.
See this reference: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/
India has the 800+ Tons of easily recoverable, cheap thorium at an estimated $80/kg to recover it or about the price of three barrels of oil. Imagine your life without electricity or power.
The Greens are afraid that nuclear power would work, and prevent their minimal impact ideal. I remember an anti-nuclear activist making the statement that unlimited power would be like “giving an idiot child a machine gun”. Besides, panic always sell to a certain market.
Yes, indeed, the anti-materialist philosophy (just because…. they cannot give you anything but that to validate it — and that is okay… if they want to live their lives that way; it’s when they try to impose their religion/philosophy on the rest of us that I say: No.) is behind some of the anti-nuclear protesting.
Good point!
And, apparently missed by this great-minds-think-alike poster, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/07/indian-energy-experts-confused-by-green-hostility-to-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-2114816
Thus, I link to her comment, for this is where, in a “reply” to Tom Halla, it would be best placed.
Why in the world did I bother?? In the hopes that it might encourage us all to READ ALL THE COMMENTS BEFORE COMMENTING.
Meh. I changed my mind as I wrote that. So WHAT! LOL — if it’s a great idea, it bears repeating… .
The efficiency drive in me just took over…. I’m back on course for live-and-let-live, now.
#(:))
“her” = “pyeatte” … male? this unfamiliar name sounded feminine to me.
They may QUESTION the hypocrisy in critical thinking, but many things involving humans don’t require the rigid application of unbiased thinking. Knowing the difference often separates the winners and losers in a battle. Risk management consistently fails to accept that the risk one chooses is typically seen as less than the risk that is put upon them, despite the realities of that risk. Fraudsters prey on this concept often. India is no stranger to this game.
Trump up fake risk via CAGW.
Demonize fossils.
Wallow around executing inefficient green energy.
Corner your people into a box of your own making.
Set up your elite as early investors in next gen nuke.
Sell them the “new” solution at a wild profit.
Ah, the human condition.
If the money going to WORTHLESS “Hot Fusion Research” and the wasted “Climate Change” (AKA Gorebull warming before Saul Alinsky-ising it..) were used to build Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plants, there would be another hundred on line in less than 15 years. Because of capacity factor, the nuclear % of electric (which is itself, 1/3 of our total energy use) would jump to about 75%. In 25 years it could be < 100%
When we are all called before the GREAT JUDGE…for this reason alone, I hope there is a Heaven and a Hell. Although I want my hell COLD for the benefit of the AWG's and Green fearmongers who shall reside there.
While there is some unreasonable opposition to nuclear power, I think the issues here are quite different.
The plants need considerable space and cooling water, which inevitably comes at the expense of the local community. Rampant corruption ensures the locals see little or nothing of any proposed compensation, even if that was actually paid out. So the plant is all downside economically as well as socially, because of the nuclear fears.
Opposition to nuclear is consequently quite rational and will continue until nuclear plants become desirable neighbors to have. That has been achieved in parts of Japan, where sea walls built to protect nuclear installations sheltered their local communities from the tidal wave that elsewhere destroyed the unprotected plant at Fukushima.
NIMBY is overcome when you make it worth something to the individual.
You have got to be talking about somewhere other than the United States of America, etudiant. As if… we can’t find places to put nuclear power plants that have enough space and cooling water without overly burdening the local population. AS IF. As to the U.S., your assertions are inaccurate, based on false premises.
The relatively low-cost POWER generated is a GREAT BENEFIT to the local community.
I agree Janet!
etudiant, educate yourself from better sources than you seem to do. Lazy learning catches you in the net of lefty, keep-em-ignorant ‘knowledge’ bytes. You obviously don’t know that vast swathes of land are required for modest and halting output of energy from wind and solar.
The world’s largest solar array is in Arizona, the Agua Caliente station at Yuma. It is 290megawatts and covers 10 km^2 and Arizona is one of the optimum locations for such a plant. If it were in New York, this output would require at least 4 times as much land. The world’s largest coal fired plants are over 5000megawatts and the world’s largest nuclear is the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan at 8,200megawatts. If this latter one were replaced by solar, it would require ~300 km^2.
The 845MW Shepherds Flat Wind Farm in Oregon covers ~80 km^2. To replace the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant with wind would take 750 km^2 to do it!
Now that’s the best situation. What isn’t in your favorite knowledge bytes is the fact that solar and wind are unpredictably intermittent in most places and require a fossil fuel, hydro or nuclear back-up, free spinning to cut in and fill in the troughs of low renewables to stabilize the grid. This ridiculous situation does not obviate the need to build the standard plants as part of the plan.
Please let this be the beginning of the development of your own learning and research efforts.
Boy, etudiant, if you don’t take a second look at your conclusions after that fine refutation of anti-nuclear power nonsense by Gary Pearse
(to whom I remain indebted for life! – Gary… did you read my thank you to you on that bogus greener lawsuit thread about 3 weeks ago? I can write it again, but it was kind of embarrassing!!… I so very much want you to know, though, so I may just do that… ),
you are not a genuine student.
Thanks for all that great analysis, Professor Pearse.
Professor, what would be expected area covered by fuel debris and the time to radioactivity to drop to livable levels in case of catastrophic accident? What is the probability of such an accident in case of mass production of power at nuclear power plants? You are seemingly very educated man, may be you know such numbers…
Walt The Physicist
“There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 16,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries. ” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors/
OK, so the “probability” is 3/(16,000 x 365.25 x 24) = 2.14 x 10^-8
Not too large, actually, since removing nuclear power as a power and heat source would cause many tens of thousands of immediate heat and thermal and “added sickness” deaths, and then hundreds of thousands more as the world tries to somehow do without 1/5 of its electricity.
You then MUST add the tens of millions secondary deaths from an immediate and irrecoverable permanent depression, plus 5 billion “stress-added” lives now fighting for power, water, sewage operations, food, and refrigeration. (Oopsie. Add a few tens of millions more deaths due to malnutrition and disease and parasites and contamination and rotten food and starvation ….)
So, how much area would be destroyed by a single catastrophic failure? A few hundred square feet inside the containment dome.
But then again, you knew that, being a physicist and all.
Walter (at 2:14pm)
Answer: Low enough that thousands of physicists, nuclear engineers, and educated others have concluded that they are fine with nuclear power.
Do you see something in that fact?
Do you see that you are, mostly likely unconsciously, arrogantly assuming that your “nuclear power is still not proven-safe” opinion is more accurate than that of all those other human beings??
Also, Walter, when a nuclear power plant “fails,” it does not explode into the atmosphere like a giant bomb.
Walt, the area covered by fuel debris would be somewhat less than the area covered by the containment building. As to how long till it drops to livable levels, that would be a century or so, but since it is contained inside the containment building, so what.
RACook, you should add that newer designs are much safer than older designs.
All the accidents you mention are old designs. Fukushima was scheduled to be decommissioned, and the Chernobyl design was rejected in the west over safety concerns.
Lessons learned at 3-mile Island immediately went into new designs being worked on.
Living within 10 miles of Three Mile Island since ’76 I can confidently say that the only threat from a nuclear plant is seeing the armed guards patrolling the fence lines. One of them might go crazy. Heck, I’ve landed in many an airliner no more than haf a mile away from the cooling towers;
TMI was a nuclear disaster. The core melted, there was some Iodine 131 released. But despite all that no deaths from radiation and no detectable deaths from the radiation release that could not be measured. Of course lots of peope played up three legged frogs and sick bass from the Susquehana, a thoroughy polluted river at the time. But the accident was caused by a dated design, poor contro designs, equipment malfuntions, and the human inability to grasp a complicated situation and work out the best response.
Newer reactors have much better, safer designs, but I’d rather wait for the fail gracefully designs which aren’t quite ready yet..
Believe it or not it was not the first time the failure that led to three mile island had occurred in that design series. There was a relief valve in the coolant system that could stick in the open position. If the operator didn’t respond correctly to the coolant loss by immediately turning on the booster pumps, the coolant would boil off and by the time the indicator read too hot, it was too late. When cold water hit the now way too hot rods, they shattered spilling nuclear fuel on the floors. The steel of the containment floor acted as the new coolant for the fuel and encased most of the material harmlessly in the now radioactive containment floor. The steel acted both as coolant and neutron absorber, stopping fission.
What is not as well known is the reactor in Columbia, SC had the same failure literally weeks before TMI, but the operator applied the booster pumps and no “accident” occurred. After TMI, if such an event occurs, every other operator of a similar reactor receives an after action report safety bulletin so they can learn from the event. This is probably the single biggest safety outcome of TMI other than the new designs which can completely lose power or be completely submerged and still provide cooling to the reactor, incident reports are shared widely throughout the industry. Before, everyone was on their own and didn’t even know that something similar was already solved.
Are you really trying to claim that standard power plants take up substantially less space and cooling water than do nuclear plants?
As to rampant corruption, that would plague standard power plants as well.
Since every complaint you come up with regarding nuclear also applies to every other form of energy, and most even more so, I can only conclude that:
A) You are extremely ignorant regarding nuclear power
B) You are opposed to all forms of energy
C) You are lying
“The plants need considerable space… ”
Wrong. Saves me the trouble of reading the rest.
Honest people are as good as their words, and vice versa. This controversy shows that the greens aren’t *really* interested in non-polluting energy. They are either anti-technology zealots (neo-Luddites), or interested in controlling people and energy, which is difficult to do if energy is inexpensive and abundant.
When you put your mind to it and have a true objective observer, critical thinking is actually easy. Now, when you accept that NO human has been honest throughout the course of their entire lives, you enter into a much harder endeavor.
Add anti-hydro to the mix and you have a formula for Third World poverty guarantee!
Although technically nuclear power is obviously great solution and it can very safe, in reality it will be absolutely unsafe. Because of its nature, the logistics of nuclear power production will be so much regulated and controlled by the governments, that it will be essentially government enterprise. Putting aside political consideration, – it will be a huge irreversible step toward socialism or communism, if you wish,- the technical part will be such that government owned nuclear energy production will have safety that is typical for a government organization. And history shows that even governments of civilized and technologically advanced societies, like Japan, are unable to provide level of safety required for use of nuclear power (Fukushima). History also shows that low tech and authoritarian governments, like it was in Soviet Russia, can actually wipe all of us from the face of the Earth (Chernobyl). Now picture China will produce energy with 1000s of nuclear reactors. Also, picture India… No, picture Somalia!
Walt! (yelling to try to get that glassy stare off his face) Look at the case of the nuclear power industry in the United States!! It is very safe. But — for — government regulation, it would be thriving. It is not more likely to be taken over by the communists in the U.S. than ANY of the power generating industries.
Fukushima resulted in NO one being harmed by nuclear radiation. NO ONE.
Walt! You — are — one — of — the irrational-fear-due-to-ignorance people! Can you hear me??
Sigh.
Walt is a case in point demonstrating (right here before our very eyes! 🙂 ) that one can only ignore the ignorant and DO THE RIGHT THING. Unstrangle the nuclear power industry.
Well, you can say that no one was harmed in Chernobyl accident either. That is according to the government data. That is exactly how governments operate. But I bet you that in 10 years or so they will find higher cancer rates in the areas near Fuckushima.
The US record is following: very small industry, serious accident – Three Mile Island. What do you think about safety record that will be in nuclear power production in Djibouti?
Walt says:
…very small industry, serious accident – Three Mile Island.
No one was killed there. If I’m wrong… name them.
The fear of nuclear power is rooted in ignorance and superstition, much like the “climate change” scare. Thousands of people have been killed in fossil fuel production and building dams. By comparison, nuclear is extremely safe.
Welcome back Mr Measurement.
Personally, the yuletide season was quite an eye opener for me. Traveled alot. Spent lots of time with young up and comers (18 to 35) and almost none of them held a firm belief in CAGW (in private). They did however feel quite the dedication to a new energy frontier and don’t really care if CAGW is real. My sense is they think its rather ridiculous to continue debating the issue and are instead focusing on how to put a fork in fossil fuels.
The more worldly ones are definitely intrigued by their idols (Gates and Zucker) investments in next gen nuke.
Interesting generation.
I’m left with the impression that since they have never really experienced bad times, they are divorced from the repercussions of decisions based on poor foundations. In their minds, wealth is unlimited and it’s just a matter of wealth realignment that will create the world they envision.
Janice, anyone that feels that they have to put ” Physicist ” in their online name, probably didn’t get past grade school…Don’t waste your valued breath !!
Janice
I’m surprised that you try to debate the unreasonable fear of nuke power with reasonable man tactics.
Most unreasonable fear is rooted in the desire of the fearful to be noticed, appreciated and to matter. Sure, try the reasonable approach, but never loose touch with why their subconscious drives them to be fearful or things that they shouldn’t fear.
Thank you for coming to my rescue (from a hopeless argument) Marcus and Knute. Your concern (and Marcus’ compliment) are heartwarming. 🙂
Good point! Well… sometimes, I argue in the off chance that a silent reader will read what I wrote and thereby not be confused or misled by the unreasonable commenter.
@ur momisugly Knutesea,@ur momisugly 1.55 pm you said:
“I’m left with the impression that since they have never really experienced bad times, they are divorced from the repercussions of decisions based on poor foundations. In their minds, wealth is unlimited and it’s just a matter of wealth realignment that will create the world they envision.’
+ many I could not have said it any better, you hit the nail on the head. I see it all around us whenevr the discussion goes there!
Thanks TS
A clearheaded moment.
The puzzle unravels more easily in the face to face.
Walt , I am looking at the current power supply in France , 65.8GW, of which 56GW or about 85% is nuclear That has been the typical pattern as long as I have been looking at the figures .
I am not aware of any major incidents in that time affecting France’s nuclear installations, although admittedly I have only got interested in this debate in the last 2 years .
Incidentally France’s nuclear power output exceeds the total UK output from all sources by about 16GW.
France produces total 1/10 of what China or US produce and probably 1/30 of what Africa needs. Now, what will be expected safety record in Africa?
Walt, you may feel that you are getting it from all sides, but stay focused.
We can’t control nuke energy policy/regulations in India, China, or any of the African countries; so why bring it up?
Yes, planning and safety regs in USA will be onerous, but it will allow for safe (if not optimum efficient) operation of nuke energy production. I would be happy to have a (above referenced Westinghouse AP1000) nuclear plant in my neighborhood if the kw/hr costs could then remain below $0.10.
As an aside and to answer your above post, If I try really hard I can imagine what Somalia would be like with reliable energy for all of the people that live there. Things might just change for the better. I can’t imagine things changing for the better without a reliable energy source.
Huh? Chernobyl wiped all of us from the face of the Earth?
The worst documented nuclear disaster killed how many people?
Exactly.
Just a fact free rant, divorced from reality.
I understand the area around Chernobyl is now a case study in how fast wildlife can re-establish in the absence of a human presence.
The place is a veritable wildlife preserve…and no three eyed fish, neither.
Maybe Walt needs to read about radiation hormesis.
Maybe Walt the Physicist needs to speak with Walt the Biologist?
“Walt the biologist” — lololo. +1 🙂
Walt, only 75 people have died world wide in nuclear reactor accidents since the 1950s, about half that in Chernobyl (not the 25,000 that was being barked by the UN and others) and this was a Soviet no frills plant without redundancies and safety infrastructure built before the existence of super computer controls and safety. Only one(!!!) had died in France, the most nuked power country in the world and this may have been a forklift accident in a spent rod plant.
Chernobyl – you drank the Kool Aid, shame on you – a physicist no less. Back to school Walt: Here is an article on the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. It has become a European Serengeti, taken over by animals large and small, some of which were thought to have been extirpated in Europe. Of course google will serve you up the greenie flood of misinformation that goes with this sort of thing on the internet. And yes, there were mutants, but can you guess what happened to them? They were devoured by healthy predators!! Darwin would be pleased.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/chernobyl_wildlife_the_radioactive_fallout_zone_is_a_wildlife_refuge_photos.html
“When Mary Mycio tells people she visited the radioactive fallout zone around Chernobyl to study the region’s animals, the questions are always the same. Do the animals have two heads? Do they glow?
Actually, according to Mycio and photographer and field biologist Sergey Gaschak, the animals are thriving.
No doubt that in absolute terms safety record of nuclear power seems fine. But what would be the numbers normalized per Watt produced per year in service as compared to the safety record of “traditional” power plants (including hydro-). That will be interesting numbers to compare. As far as Chernobyl is concerned neither you nor I know the true numbers as well as the real impact.
Would you go live there?
Gary
Lots of current and past studies on Chernobyl. Wildlife is flourishing but I’d want to know more before I munched down on a hunted boar. Much like CAGW, I’m sure the spin of the variety of studies will resurrect themselves as nukes are politically pushed and it will become increasingly hard to zero in on good literature. Here’s one that attributes far more post incident deaths … http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908.
I’m not advocating its facts, just sharing the plethora of research that’s out there.
Christopher Paino: Are the nuclear power plants in the United States built and maintained like the one in Chernobyl was?
There was a really good program on BBC where a reporter spend weeks going through the Chernobyl region in restricted areas. People were actually still living there, growing vegetables, hunting ( as they have done for generations) fishing and just living life. He found no ill effects but actually there was a vibrant population of people, animals and growth. As others have mentioned it was a terrible design with few proper controls such as fire protection.
As such Walt the “physicist” You better check the KoolAid you are drinking I am starting to worry it is contaminated and who knows it may actually have radiation problems.
( I was amazed the BBC actually broadcast the hour long program)
Thanks TS
Got link ?
The real problem in Nuclear Safety is the idea that somehow radiation is foreign to the human evolution. We draw a straight line from lethal dose to zero dose and say “radiation bad!”. Actual study of humans in radiation zones seems to indicate that some small dose of radiation actually boosts our immune system and leads to less genetic malformation. The problem lies in the definition of “Small”. What seems beneficial for one person causes leukemia in another. Drawing the line on where damage starts to outweigh benefit in the “generic human” is the rub.
knutesea:
It was an episode of Top Gear and can be viewed here.
Jeremy Clarkson toured the Chernobyl area.
Richard
@Walt the Physicist and Etudiant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll
The link to the Wikipedia article above lists the the number of deaths from fossil fuel-related accidents (among other causes) gobally going all the way back to 1962. The last time I added up all the deaths from natural gas and other fossil fuel accidents (which was some years ago) I believe I came up with a number that was in the 10’s of thousands.
Walt and Etudiant, if there is any list of nuclear energy related deaths somewhere that is anywhere near as long and as deadly as the one linked to above, I would appreciate your showing it to me because I do not know of one offhand. It never ceases to amaze me how nuclear energy gets bashed and bashed again by individuals because of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima without these individuals having done their homework and having made themselves aware of how many have died around the world from fossil fuel-related accidents over the decades.
Please don’t bother giving me the “all-radiation-is-dangerous” argument without being able to debunk the scientific evidence supporting the Radation Hormesis Hypothesis. And please don’t give me the “their-is-no-solution-to-the-plutonium-waste-issue” argument without checkout out Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (which China is developing now) also known as LFTR as well as GE’s PRISM reactor.
When one allows fear, hate and mistrust to dominate and muddy the waters of one’s thinking and uses his or her emotions to formulate his/her opinions and belief systems, the chances are that those opinions and beliefs are going to be found to be faulty when facts, science, logic and reasoning are applied to them.
Walt should also stop driving his car as 36,000 people get killed every year in the States alone, but frankly I decided he is a troll looking to get attention . ( My last comment on the subject, I am wasting my time)
. I just wish we’d go all out on nuclear and a suggestion. why not build them where Hydro dams are? lots of cooling water and you get 2 bangs for your buck!
Wow, the fake physicist really knows how to throw the bull.
Let me see if get this straight. Govt regulation leads to govt ownership, therefore nuclear power will lead us to a one world totalitarian govt.
If that’s what you actually believe, than why not oppose all govt regulation of everything.
Just think how many more Russian nuclear plants could have been ordered shortly after the Paris meetings if India had gotten what it wanted from blank checks by Kerry et al.
Besides being the greenest power available, the economic viability is so compelling, it’s absurd that the Green’s are so opposed to it. A nuclear power plant, including overburdening regulations, decommissioning costs and land costs less than PV on a cost per peak W basis and this doesn’t include the cost of energy storage which is required to make PV viable on a commercial scale. A nuke can deliver its peak capacity 24/7, while the PV duty cycle in the most optimistic case is about 15%. A GW nuclear plant occupies a few acres, while a GW (peak) PV array would occupy about 5 square miles and if you wanted a net GW, it would occupy over 30 square miles leading to operating costs far in excess of those of a nuclear plant, including fuel.
It’s truly unfortunate that ignorance has replaced science and if this is not reversed, it will lead to the downfall of civilization and this is the largest danger we face from ‘climate change’. So in a perverse way, Obama is right.
Let me ask you, who will regulate safety of these multiple nuclear power plants that will be essentially owned by the government? The government… And you think that it will work?
Very likely….. dear Walter, the same agencies REGULATING IT NOW.
Walt, my dad worked for 7 years as a “fireman” at a major petroleum refinery–who is a person that does NOT put out fires, but actually initiates and controls the boiler fires at the bottom of the fractionation towers. Fractionation involves the separation of all liquid and near-liquid hydrocarbons native to petroleum, and is therefore quite dangerous. It doesn’t take much for a mistake to become a catastrophe, and refineries generally have huge tank farms with volatile, pre-refined petroleum.
My point is that we do not spend hours awake at night, quaking in our beds, fearful of prospective explosions or fires at the hundreds of refinery facilities around the nation. Get a grip. Find something real to fear.
Walt,
Regulating safety is something that can only happen when the government does not own the plants and they do not now or ever should own them, at least in the US. Government generally opts out of the regulations it imposes on industry for ‘national security reasons’ as witnessed by the few reactors they do own for weapons production.
Walt,
It’s called the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). If they weren’t strangled by the politicos and greens, they can, and do, do a good job of regulating the industry. Fear of nuclear power is and has been, for years, a political tactic.
“initiates and controls the boiler fires at the bottom of the fractionation towers”
Huh? I’ve never seen fire anywhere near fractionation towers. Fractionation towers are heated by steam or electricity. The fire happens in boilers, fired heaters, etc.
Oh, yeah, Walt-the-Fizzicist-in-the-AlkaSeltzer-Factory. You’re grasping at straws, trying to find an argument that holds up against nuclear. I expect soon you’ll be lamenting the possibility that someone driving by a nuclear plant will be seized with fear of radiation and run off the road. That someone would be you, most likely.
When I was involved in coal consulting a long time ago, between 3000 and 5000 coal mining deaths per year were occurring in China underground. Although China is improving their U/G mining safety, I think Nuclear has a far better safety record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_mining_accidents_in_China
Walt,
If they are AP1000, they could likely be regulated by baboons as long as no one monkeyed with the three redundant cooling systems. A good engineer or two in control and the thing will last forever (or near enough with refuelings)
If you’re going to cap CO2 emissions and keep all the benefits of large-scale energy availability, there is simply no known alternative to nuclear. All forms of green energy are much too low-density to be effective replacements. How do you power a 100,000 ton container ship across the Pacific? Row it with galley slaves? (now there’s a green job creating opportunity, eh?) How about sails?(better not ship any green bananas). These people are just not thinking the consequences through.
Want to make nuke power all the rage ?
Promise everyone in your country that they will individually increase their wealth.
The country will be safer.
Their children will have a better life.
If this initiative was done in the above spirit, people would fight to make it happen.
It’s easy.
Hi, Knute, glad to see you back on board commenting. Your pithy, pleasant, presence was missed. Janice
Janice
Thanks for noticing. I’ve been around, but late to the party.
Hope you had a fabulous yuletide season and are paying attention to the 2016 unraveling of the bloated equity markets. Case in point, NYC real estate has NEVER been higher.
Mr Pithy
It seems so odd that young folk who faun so after Star Wars and Star Trek and their mega machines with so many high energy drivers/weapons/ and mastery of dangerous physics should be so leery of nuclear power as the obvious first step on the way to the stars. Crazy
One of life’s most profound mysteries !!
With nuclear power, they can only regulate a few power plants. With CO2 emissions, they can regulate everybody.
+1
To Janice More:
But who will regulate nuclear power production in Djibouti? How the nonproliferation will be imposed? With current relatively few nuclear players IAEA is impotent to control the situation. Besides, even if the working mechanisms are created, still, it would mean bigger governments. Many people, who are disgusted with any signs of socialism, would be happy with coal, oil, and gas that will last for long time. Since, it seems that the environmental impact of this industry is already very small and continues to improve.
YOU do not have control of what other countries use for energy and neither does the rest of the world !
Dear Walt, Physicist,
How will not building/expanding the nuclear power industry in the United States prevent more Chernobyls from happening?
And, by the way, your breath (ref. a comment made above) is valued, too. Of course.
Best wishes finding out the facts,
Janice (going to lunch, now)
Yes, in the US it can be safe. But then we are talking about excluding all these brown and yellow people from the energy club. In the meantime if they are included in such a club it will be “like a child idiot with a machinegun”. how to resolve such a dilemma?
Oh Man. Vote one for US president and nominate some as UN secretary general, IPCC Chair, President of World Bank etc.
Walt: Too late India, Pakistan, South Africa, China all already have the power plants and the bombs if you are worried about the cat getting out of the bag it’s too late. The only solution is to bring the rest of the world into the 21st century at the same time that we continuously develop the military/technological counter measures to defend ourselves from assault. Otherwise the leap will never be made into the 22nd or 23rd century.
Walt, you have no shame at all. A better informed and reasonable person would have quietly left his losing argument behind and perhaps try to make a contribution on a loftier plane. But what do you come up with for an encore? That yellow and brown people would be irresponsible and dangerous having this technology!!! Asians are already well hooked up with nuclear power, South Africa has two and will be building more. Indeed, the design their own. Anyway I don’t wish to try to educate the ineducable. It tells me also, that you wouldn’t know physics from fricassee. I’m out.
To Marcus:
In most schools physics tarts in high school. No physics in grade school 🙂
Yes Walter, that was my point !
What? In my high school, there were no “physics tarts.” Dang!
I had lots of tarts in my school !!
Lucky dog
But none were in physics class dagnabbit!
Well I have to agree there were some “tarts” in high school. Meanwhile look at all those giga tons of water vapor hurling into the troposphere out of the cooling towers. We’re doomed ’cause water vapor is much more potent than CO2 when it comes to throwing the oh-so-finely balanced climate irretrievably out of whack. A perturbation of that magnitude spells doom for polar bears.
I realize that your tongue is quickly firmly planted in your cheek, but I just had to mention that the only thing all that extra humidity will do is to ever so slightly increase the rainfall downwind.
Not in my backyard is not just a liberal concern, I think fusion is the only viable alternative to replace the age of hydrocarbons.
Let’s not try to mandate science fiction.
Why? If a fusion reactor breaks containment you have a million K ball of fire being released unless you think cold fusion is “right around the corner”. Fusion at commercial scales is actually scary. The amount of nuclei binding to release the energy to produce the power of an AP1000 series fission reactor is mind blowing. A plasma release of that proportion could take out a large area.
Right now we call it a success if a few nuclei fuse over a few microseconds, releasing several orders of magnitude less energy than put into it to cause the nuclei to be in a state to fuse. Give me a modern fission reactor any day. While we are at it, lets begin reprocessing all those poisoned fuel rods to make fresh rods for new reactors. Building fuel processing plants should be a major priority. All those that are worried we will be able to collect plutonium in doing so should just stuff it! Plutonium works as a fine reactor fuel too, just reprocess it and ship it to appropriate plants!
It’s not the temperature that matters, but the total amount of energy.
Yes it’s hot, but it’s a gas and there’s only a few ounces of it. If it breaks containment, everything in the room will be scorched, perhaps even melted a bit.
Outside the room, no big deal.
MarkW,
So you are saying that there is only going to be a couple of mols of the plasma for a reaction that has a 10^-20 ish barns cross-section to release 1000MW worth of energy. (thats about 10^21 MeV of mass defect each second – before losses and heat engine efficiencies are taken into account). I don’t think the math adds up on that. You either need to find a way to get that cross-section up closer to unity or you probably aren’t going to get commercially viable power. There are only two ways to increase your output in a low cross-section reaction: the brute force method (lots of particles in a small space at high temperature) or some very careful resonance management. The resonance bands are still in the 10^-7 barn area, so still a little difficult.
Maybe some smart person will figure out a way to engineer your couple of mols at a time reaction to produce 10^21 MeV of mass defect per second, but I have a feeling it is a long ways away.
At any one instance, yes, that is what I am saying.
To Michael J. Dang:
Yes, yeas… It was misspelled “starts”…
Are you 10 years old ?? You can’t figure out how to ” REPLY ” to someone ?
Don’t worry, Walter. We realized that. 🙂
Janice
Good to see you are not longer “out to lunch”.
:::: ducking ::::
lol … just sometimes. 🙂
@ur momisugly Knute don’t be hard on Janice, she did take hour for lunch and I hope it was a good one!
Thanks, Tobias (what a nice name (smile)).
Because the Indian government doesn’t get it. This is not about reducing CO2. It’s about building political power. Advancing nuclear would not achive this goal.
It’s about Agenda 21, which includes political power for the elites !
@ur momisugly Knutesea, Re Chernobyl / BBC. Go to their site click search enter “Chernobyl it will give you 3-4 programs I am still trying to find the exact one but I think the guy called Peter is the one that did the doc. ( but maybe it was an indy type he sold to BBC I’ll keep on trying), Cheers!
Having done lots of business with people from India, I can assure you that they get “it” probably better than Americans do. they are far more in touch with poverty and having to do without. That poverty surrounds them and grounds them in reality.
Oh, I have no doubt the Indians know about reducing poverty. They’ve been doing a remarkable job of it over the past 30 years or so. What they don’t get is shaming nuclear to build political power, as it’s done in the West. The CAGW green’s response to nuclear proves that they are not about reducing CO2, but rather advancing communist power structures.
India, much like China, finally started to eliminate poverty when they gave up on socialism.
India is still hampered by an onerous bureaucracy. To take but one example, truckers lose hours to days waiting for inspection at state boundaries. Another is the inability of consumer electronics corporations to set up their own stores in Indian malls or shopping centers. Apple for instance can’t build Apple Stores there, but has to find space in a local company’s store.
The dead hand of India’s socialist regulatory past still weighs heavily on its brightening future.
The fatted calf is lulled into thinking there will always be grass to feed on. The hungry calf has no such illusions.
Terrific documentary, “Pandora’s Promise” on Netflix with leading environmentalists ‘changing their minds’ and now proponents of nuclear. (Still get digs in to climate deniers.) Mark Lyenas was featured but has changed his tune on GMO, on nuclear and still waiting for him to ‘get it’ on climate.
Thanks Logan
In lieu of me giving Netflix even more money can you tell me the top 3 things that made people change their mind ?
Knute: I just went to youtube and watched about 5 minutes of part I of “Pandora’s Promise.” I was going to post the link, here, but changed my mind after watching the first 5 minutes or so. Regardless of whatever merits it may have, it appears to be full of misinformation about the radiation danger from: 1) Fukushima itself; and 2) nuclear power in general.
Let us know if it is not subtle anti-nuclear-industry-propaganda-in-disguise (if you watch it – I’m not going to bother after that intro.).
Janice
Thanks Janice for filtering out the trash