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.
Entertaining/informative article from an online Oil Industry magazine concerning what Paris accomplished.
Also has a section on the nukes and some nifty charts. I learned a few things. Thought I’d share.
http://oilpro.com/post/21364/paris-conference-message-we-changed-worlds-energy-mix?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2016-01-07&utm_content=Feature_1_txt
My apologies for misinterpreting the article, I’d thought the nuclear opposition being highlighted was focused on India and tried to give some reasons why the locals there might oppose nuclear plants in their neighborhood, which they have done. I have no argument that there is plenty of space for nuclear plants in the US or that a nuclear plant is more compact than a comparable fossil or solar facility.
Beyond that though, halftiderock’s assessment that honesty is what is essential to get public acceptance of nuclear in the US is spot on. Honesty is indeed the essential ingredient in any sustainable effort, whether diesel engines from VW or nuclear power generation.
Sadly it has always been in very short supply in nuclear, unsurprising as the industry has been a creature of government from its inception. Governments are always in thrall to spin doctors whose job is to make it look good rather than telling the truth. The result is deep public mistrust, a disbelief that the nuclear industry has the ability to manage its affairs honestly.
That distrust deepens with every nuclear accident, because the cause is almost always sloppy work, something that is inherent in human activity, but very embarrassing to admit. Fukushima is really an exception, because the disaster was not caused by humans. The more recent WIPP accident is much more representative: Los Alamos dumping inappropriate waste at WIPP and packing the waste drums using kitty litter to absorb nitric acid rather than inert diatomaceous earth, the WIPP management wiring the automatic fire doors open because they were a maintenance headache and then the non disclosure of emissions for weeks after the accident. That does not build trust in the management of nuclear sites. Public acceptance is correspondingly low.
There is no need to apologize, etudiant. Your arguments were on topic, generally speaking. Even though the article was focused on Western opposition to nuclear power and Indian acceptance of it, pointing out potential problems with Indian nuclear power was relevant and worthwhile. And we misunderstood you (partly due to your slightly vague writing, partly due to our assuming you were talking about nuclear power in general, not in India specifically) — to a point.
However… several of your assertions are, even so, not strong enough reasons for Indians to reject nuclear power for themselves:
From your comment here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/07/indian-energy-experts-confused-by-green-hostility-to-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-2114725
1.
Yes, but, this is not a fatal objection to building the nuclear power plants. The community benefits from having reliable, relatively inexpensive, power, and there are also many jobs in constructing and maintaining it (and also in any factories or other business enterprises which open up due to the power plant). Cost > or = benefit.
2.
What “compensation” are you referring to? If it is the Indian equivalent to the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Am.’s “just compensation” for a “taking” of private property for public use, it may, indeed, not be fairly done in India, but they STILL get a net benefit from the power supply.
3.
Please see above.
4.
No, while the fear makes the opposition a rational response, the fears themselves, based in misinformation, are not rational, thus, the response is, ultimately, NOT rational. It is irrational fear, based on ignorance of the truth about the safety of nuclear power plants and waste storage.
5.
What makes a nuclear plant an undesirable neighbor more than any moderately noisy industrial plant? Why do you assume anyone would be living right next door to one? And why do you assume that many people would be living close enough to be bothered by lights/noise of plant? The plants can be located reasonably far from highly populated areas, can they not?
So! Here’s to a brand new year! …. to lucid writing and to TRUTH banishing all irrational fear … and to nuclear power bringing prosperity throughout the immense and grand country of India!
*clink!*
#(:))
Having a nuclear power plant as your neighbor generally insures you get high quality electrical services from the grid. Which in the developing world is not a guarantee and makes siting many industrial and business operations near a nuke advantageous. And, if you like your AC on in the summer, a good place to live.
My biggest issue with the original article was that every single one of his “complaints” applied equally to every other form of energy generation. But it was only nuclear that he opposed.
Yes, J!
And MarkW, good point — I failed to mention that WINDMILL FARMS are HORRIBLE neighbors to have (noise and uuuugggllyyy).
All good points, Janet. It should be noted that water requirements vary. Nuclear plants do not use up water. They bring it into the plant for steam condensation and then release it again, with the only change being that it’s slightly warmed up. The amount of water required can be greatly diminished by use of closed circuit cooling.
As to being neighbours, it’s a curious fact that at least in Canada, nuclear plants have their greatest support among their immediate neighbours. This poses some problem for green protesters who then have to find their rent-a-mobs from out of community.
The anti-nuclear stance is surprising. On Capitol Hill in DC, the Nuclear lobby has been a powerful voice for a ‘price for carbon’. I would conjecture they alone, thru better organization, politics, and funding, sustained the AGW movement during the Bush years. Only to be pushed aside in the end game.
Of course, in the end, all the fellow travelers get the knife.
This is what I tell people who take the AGW position: If you don’t like fossil fuels your choices are nuclear power or poverty.
What part of Fukushima do you not understand? We need to end all nuclear power. As long as the risk is non zero the risk is too great.
So, you are arguing that we should only do those things that have ZERO risk?
Well that eliminates everything, since there is nothing that has ZERO risk.
Nobody died at Fukushima, and if you had actually bothered to read something other than the pamphlets your handler gave you, you would have found out the problems post Fukushima were not that big and entirely contained.
Beyond that, it was an old plant that used an old design that isn’t being built anymore.
To be rigorously correct, three people died at Fukushima. One was in a construction crane when the earthquake hit. Two were in the plant yard when the tsunami came over the seawall. These of course could have happened at any power plant regardless of fuel type. But you are correct in saying that fatalities from radiation exposure were zero.
What power generation industry is zero (or even close to it) risk? Nuclear power is one of the LOWEST risk-to-worker and to the general public power sources. Didn’t you read the comment about about the thousands of Chinese who have died mining coal? Did you not read the many highly-informed comments above citing safety statistics? You obviously did not bother to read the comments above OR you are so brainwashed you argue like simple-intelligence robo-call software — (“I’m sorry. I did not recognize that. Can you tell me how I can help you? You can choose: Billing…. Technical Support….”…… “Sorry. …. You can choose: Billing….. Technical Support….”) — against what you irrationally fear in the face of powerful facts arguments to the contrary.
Lol, you cite Fukushima when its benign impact (radiation – wise) is evidence FOR using nuclear power.
There are many well informed people on this forum and I bet someone can provide a quantitative support for one or another side of the argument by comparing risk factors defined, for example, as number of deaths directly related to the accidents at the power plants divided by the total energy produced divided by the total time in exploitation. Those will be interesting numbers to compare; however, I bet that nuclear power will look not so attractive.
On the issue of “irrational fear”, such thing doesn’t exist. One always has reasons to fear; hence, it is rational. The intensity of fear seemingly depends on what kind of consequence feared phenomenon can produce. Let’s say a nurse working in a hospital has much higher chance to catch pneumonia and die of it than get infected with HIV. However, I bet, if you ask the nurse will fear HIV more. Radiation is known to produce horrible effects and it is feared correspondingly. Calling this fear irrational is lack of compassion.
Also, different people have different thresholds for fear. I would say that, the fear threshold is relatively lower for those who are white and older, or of proletariat origin, or single and never being married, or didn’t have children, or poorly educated, or exhibit cavalier attitude, or have any combination of the above qualities. For those who have a lot to lose the fear threshold is relatively higher and can be beyond rational grasp to those with low fear threshold.
Cheers
Juicy topic.
There are many “I slept at a Holiday Inn” recommendations for how to deal with cognitive dissonance (CD).
Any recommendation that actually works is worth listening to. Compassion ? Sure, it’s part of the mix. So is reflecting a reality rooted in fact back to the person trapped in a CD pattern.
It’s awfully hard work for us humans. So hard that Dante’s Inferno places the abusers of man’s propensity to be fooled in the worst spots of the place called Hell.
After the facts are lined up and validated, the heavy lift of readjusting those fears can take far longer. Grouping confounds the problem rather than lift the fog because the desire to belong is deeply rooted in us primates.
It’s a wonder that we seem to rise above these pitfalls and it appears we most often do when faced with truly urgent situations.
We are a fascinating species.
Walt The Physicist:
I have been doing some study on the issue of nuclear safety, specifically deaths caused by nuclear power reactors. I don’t have my data handy at the moment but several things are clear: (1) total deaths known to be caused by nuclear power, including military reactors, is quite small. (2) the vast majority of the deaths charged to major reactor accidents are estimated by models and I don’t believe any rigorous followup has been conducted to validate those estimates. (3) a surprising number of radiation deaths have been caused by radiotherapy accidents and mismanagement, rather than power reactors. (4) the vast majority of reactor deaths are directly attributed to poor design, inadequate procedures, incompetent management and operator error. And almost all occurred in the Soviet Union.
The figures I have are certainly incomplete: there is no data for China, N. Korea, and other nations engaged in secret nuclear programs, so the actual deaths from reactor accidents would be somewhat higher. But from all the reported data the confirmed deaths number a little above 200. There is enormous variation in estimated “excess” deaths that might be attributed to nuclear power:
Full article is here.
I have no idea how to treat excess attributed death estimates over such a wide range. But if we stick with known deaths (and I would include people killed responding to a nuclear accident, even if not caused by radiation), the number is quite small. Consider in the US every year there are 20-40 coal miner fatalities. Since the advent of nuclear power in the US (1958) through 2014 there have been 6,700 coal miner deaths against a handful of reactor fatalities. See here.
In contrast, in the early days of high-pressure steam engines, there were many boiler explosions which killed 100 or more people at a time. The worst one known happened in 1865 when the Sultana, badly overloaded with returning Union soldiers, suffered a dry boiler explosion and sank. Killed were an estimated 1,700 people (the number is estimated due to poor records and an official coverup, not because there weren’t actual bodies) — a worse disaster than the Titanic nearly 60 years later but involving no rich or famous people. If you consider the growth in world population since 1865, an equivalent disaster today would claim 8,500 lives.
And to really put this in perspective: you are far more likely to die from a texting driver than a reactor accident:
and
(source: here).
Now it must be admitted that nuclear accidents are hugely expensive to clean up, even when the loss of life is small.
Excellent research Alan.
I bookmarked it.
Suggest comparing cost of cleanup to net economic benefit of the plant.
The biggest point of contention is not immediate death due to the accident or rad exposure but the long term health effects esp concerning Chernobyl.
If the nuke industry wants to accelerate acceptance of the technology, it would benefit from a more rigorous evaluation of the data concerning that event.
The unknown of the known allows the boogeyman to live under the bed.
Walt the P.,
By your definition of “irrational,” nothing can be irrational, i.e., your assertion is meaningless. The Precautionary Fallacy, attractive only to those whose reason is overwhelmed by imagination, is a reason to do or not to do ANYTHING. It is a useless concept.
Psychiatry would call such fears: “phobias.” They are considered unhealthy and are NOT based in truth and are persisted in despite powerful facts and arguments to the contrary.
Just — like — your — fear — of — nuclear power.
Brave people act in spite of their irrational fears, e.g., those with a phobia of flying who grit their teeth and get on that plane anyway. Cowards yell at everyone else to stay indoors and …. not take showers (heh).
I am sorry that you have a phobia about nuclear power, if that is, indeed the case, Mr. P.. Education (just re-read this thread, with an open mind, for one source) and, perhaps, cognitive therapy (not a thing to be ashamed of!), might help.
Best wishes in conquering fear and living a life of joy!
Janice
P.S. Recommended movie: “The Truman Show.” In it a man (played by Jim Carrey) with a terrible phobia overcomes it in the end and escapes into reality and truth. I would say more, but it would spoil the suspense. I’ll just say this: YOU CAN GET OUT OF FEAR, TOO!!
Do try. You are worth it!
Ah, the things us humans do. Have an old pal who dated a woman with a tattoo of maneater on her inner lower lip. Her two prior lovers mysteriously disappeared.
Meanwhile, his day job was an actuary for a well known insurance firm.
Go figure.
Walt, all of this work has been done for many years by the Paul Scherrer Institut. Their work shows that based on actual performance of energy systems over the past 100 years that nuclear is by far the safest way to generate electricity per unit of energy produced.
As long as the risk is non zero the risk is too great.
The Precautionary Principle in spades. If we applied that to any power source, we’d all be frozen to death.
Wondering if I should apply the PP to showering http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6022a1.htm
The lesson there is that if you are going to build a nuclear plant in an area prone to earthquakes, you probably shouldn’t put it close to the sea where it may be exposed to a resulting tsunami. And if you must put it close to the sea, then your backup generators need to be tsunami-proof. Common sense stuff.
+1
No, the proper conclusion is that you build a plant to withstand expected local conditions. There were repeated studies over the years showing that Daiichi had a seawall insufficiently high. These were ignored because the plant was at the end of its useful life. Unit 1 was in its last fuel operating cycle and was tot be permanently shutdown about 8 months subsequent to when the earthquake intervened. It should be noted that the Fukushima Daiini plant rode out the earthquake and tsunami just fine even though it was a mere 11 km away from Daiichi.
Perhaps both are right. Instead of building in a higher risk area and trying to compensate for that risk, build in a lower risk area.
knutesea, generally I agree. However, Japan is a special case. Much of the country contains active seismic zones. So, you have to build to meet local circumstances. There’s no mystery to how to do this. It should also be remembered that Fukushima 2011 was the world’s largest earthquake and tsunami in recorded history by about an order of magnitude in terms of energy release. Despite that, all the plants rode through the earthquake reasonably well. It was the tsunami which was the killer.
And even that wouldn’t have been a problem if the backup generators weren’t in the basement, and the fuel tanks were out unbunkered in the plant yard. It also would not have been a problem, even with all these deficiencies, if like all modern plants, Fukushima Daiichi had hydrogen igniters. The situation could still have been remedied if they had vented the hydrogen gas buildup, but plant crews were slow to understand the problem, and the regulatory authorities were even slower to grant permission.
Thanks for the response. The slow to act decision making during an emergency needs to be fixed if they want public approval. While not a nuke plant, I’ve been following Enbridge’s efforts concerning streamlined decision making during emergency action plans for the proposed Northern Gateway. One could easily learn alot from the other.
knutesea, the issue of training and emergency response requires properly a very long and detailed answer, which is prohibitive in a post response. What I can say is that both were in very short supply in the specific situation of F Daiichi. A lot of this was not TEPCO only but very large failures on the part of both the Japanese government and the regulator.
Enbridge has begun to institute these things after some difficulties with an oil pipeline rupture last year. However, Northern Gateway is dead. One of the first actions of the new Trudeau government late last year was to ban all tanker traffic from northern British Columbia coastal waters.
Does Japan have a similar system ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Incident_Management_System_%28US%29
Is there a worldwide standard for such a thing ?
Pity about the Gateway. I expected more from the Tundra people. Rather surprising how a primarily level headed culture elects such misguided leadership. Nevertheless, the pipeline will eventually have its day and the good work that Enbridge rolled out won’t go to waste. The oil has to get to market somehow.
I think I have an idea. Maybe someone needs to suggest it to the greens. I don’t know any, so I can’t.
Instead of carbon caps, we should initiate worldwide KILOWATT caps. And mandate a reduction in kilowatts produced to, say, 50% of the current level by 2025.
I think many of them would go for it. And I would love to see the reaction.
My first commercial job after getting out of the US Navy was in the control room during commissioning at the nuke plant pictured above. The reason the plant was built was that power was needed. A third unit is planned for the Susquehanna site. I do not think it will get built until the shale gas boom is played out in Pennsylvania.
India needs power. If climate change is a consideration, it is at the bottom of the list of considerations.
We’ve got three new reactors coming online in the next 5 years in my neck of the woods. Quite frankly, looking at the population and economic growth in Georgia, we probably should be looking for siting for 3 or 4 more, build some nice Gen 3+ reactors and have plenty of baseload power to spare.
Three? I only know of two new at Plant Votgle. Where is there a third new reactor being built?
Watts Barr Unit 2.
Lots of history there. Would make a great case study for how community acceptance was arrived at, including the upriver relationship that Oak Ridge has with the surrounding area.
cgh:
Thanks, I had read the two new Plant Vogtle reactors were the first new licenses issued in I think 30 years (since Three Mile Island), so I was surprised to hear there was a third under construction. I see now construction on Watts Bar # 2 started over 20 years ago, was halted in 1998 and only resumed in 2007.
That’s right, Alan. Watt’s Bar 2 got its operating licence back on October 22. It had been suspended since 1985 when it was 55% complete. TVA did announce last month that it will not be proceeding with the two Bellefont units that were similarly suspended for about two decades. Too much of their inventoried eqjuipment was either in bad shape, used elsewhere, or no longer met regulatory standards.
Over in South Carolina. I live on the border
@cgh, 3.56 pm Jan 8
:Watt’s Bar 2 got its operating licence back on October 22. It had been suspended since 1985 when it was 55% complete. TVA did announce last month that it will not be proceeding with the two Bellefont units that were similarly suspended for about two decades. Too much of their inventoried equipment was either in bad shape, used elsewhere, or no longer met regulatory standards.
Thanks for that info, to me it shows there are great regs in place that are needed. In some industries they’d just open the doors sweep away the garbage and continue.. We need nuclear but as you showed it needs to be done right!
“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.”
Pop quiz George! What happens to water when it get really cold? Hydro does a really good job of making electricity of mild spring days when the snow pack melts and power when it is needed the least. The PNW needs coal, gas, and nuke plants to keep the lights on 24/7/365.
Worked at Washington State’s commercial nuke too.
@etudiant
Just so you know, the foot print of a 1000 MWe nuke plant is about the same as a Walmart. Cooling water systems are the same as for any steam plant.
Nuke plant have a well paid workforce and pay lots of taxes. Communities with nuke plants are happy to have them.
To Alan Watt at 1:58pm:
Thanks, it make sense. However, you say “(4) the vast majority of reactor deaths are directly attributed to poor design, inadequate procedures, incompetent management and operator error. And almost all occurred in the Soviet Union.” And I think that this is exactly the danger that , if the technology will be handed to low tech and non-democratic societies, they will create huge problems for us, much bigger and more serious than USSR created for Europe with Chernobyl. Now, of course, we are not obliged to share or proliferate the technology. But then the government should ban private companies from doing their business – socialism!!!: (. And even then, when we all say “heck with this freedom, let gov take full control”, even then all these countries will be super motivated to start nuclear power race, as it happened in a little different setting with the Soviets who lost their pants but built powerful nuclear industry. Now, what is wrong with using coal and oil and make it cleaner, as it is already super clean? Especially as majority of rational people would agree that all this AGW is just nonsense of unscrupulous people who chase fame and money (like Jagadish Shukla). I think we better stick to coal, gas. Hopefully, after these billions of $$ spent, Livermore will find a way to achive feasible fusion and then we will have unlimited and super safe energy… in the next century 🙂
More utter silliness. Reactors built offshore are built to meet the regulatory standards of the supplier nation. They are also built to meet IAEA standards and requirements, so your comment about “low tech and non-democratic societies” is wrong, stupid and probably racist.
Moreover, Livermore may indeed be working on fusion, but this has little or nothing to do with energy production, certainly not from a laser array. Maybe you’d best stick to something you know about rather than flying the false colours of claiming to be a physicist.
Actually it is neither stupid nor racist nor islamophobic but just factual. Or maybe you are not considering that Somalia might want to build own reactor if you have one in your white class neighborhood? I choose to ignore your last sentence showing your low class and anger.
Walt The Physicist:
From my current understanding of nuclear reactors, I definitely agree they are not the preferred solution for every country. It takes a nation with a stable government, a fair degree of transparency and a broad technical infrastructure to operate and maintain them to acceptable safety standards.
Which means that even with a major expansion on nuclear power we can’t eliminate fossil fuels; they must continue to be the primary energy source for less developed nations, as well as power most transportation systems.
Thus the carbon reduction targets from COP21 are pure fantasy.
Walt, there are just a few countries that can even build , let alone operate a nuclear facility, if you believe a few guys with ak 47’s and a pick-up truck can run one or remove so called “weapon” grade materials for their use is totally ludicrous, What planet are you from? Please look in a mirror and decide you are a troll.
To cgh 3:14 pm
Thanks, would you have a reference, please? In any case, I wouldn’t trust blindly the research done at PSI or Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy or LANL. Same as I wouldn’t blindly trust NASA on global warming. Information is available and independent people, groups or organizations can assess relative safety. Who will pay them though?…
Angela Merkel is a physicist by training. So is her husband. Merkel was one of the biggest boosters of nuclear energy production in Europe until Fukushima happened. It’s absurd to dismiss her as a crazy green zealot. This was one judgment call she was and is much more competent to make than perhaps any other leader of a major world power, and it took courage.
I don’t know what the reasoning behind her decision was, but I would guess that it went something like this. If the Japanese can’t safely contain nuclear power production, it’s likely that Germans can’t either, at least not at our present state knowledge and political organization (because, after all, it’s impossible to keep the administrators and politicians from getting their fingers into the works and frustrating all attempts at due caution and adequate fail-safe mechanisms).
The bottom line is that Fukushima demonstrated conclusively that in the hands of even the most technically advanced societies, nuclear power is not safe. And the irrefutable fact is that we don’t know what the consequences for not only humanity, but all higher life forms on earth, could be if a hundred nuclear reactors around the world blew up. It’s madness to start a process that could be massively destructive and that you cannot reliably stop.
What does any of that have to do with being “green”? If a “green” group says it’s nuts to build a toxic waste site in the middle of a residential community, is that proof that that’s exactly where it needs to go? Often, reading this forum, one can get the impression that such is the level of logic here.
How many people were harmed by radiation exposure from the Fukushima incident?
None.
Your guess GROSSLY mischaracterizes Chancellor Merkel. She is a bright, well-educated, highly rational, scientist. She is also a politician. What she does in her political role might easily be at times at odds with what she would say about nuclear power and Fukushima in particular, privately. No informed, rational, person would say:
“the Japanese can’t safely contain nuclear power production.”
The facts say otherwise.
Either you did not read the comments above yours on this thread
or
you are a hustler for one of nuclear power’s competitors.
Given your laughably inaccurate mischaracterization of the pro-nuclear power comments on this thread, I strongly suspect the latter.
Bottom line, Otro the Disingenuous: get real (as in deal in facts) or get lost.
Janice Moore
January 8, 2016 at 7:00 pm said
“How many people were harmed by radiation exposure from the Fukushima incident?
None.”
…..
I think you need to expand your reading horizons.
““the Japanese can’t safely contain nuclear power production.”
The facts say otherwise.”
I haven’t come across these facts. The reports and documentaries I’ve read indicate that a very large number of people have had to leave their homes forever, and considerable high quality farmland has been contaminated for a long time to come. And most of all – the Japanese were very lucky in the way things turned out.
“Either you did not read the comments above yours on this thread
or
you are a hustler for one of nuclear power’s competitors.
Given your laughably inaccurate mischaracterization of the pro-nuclear power comments on this thread, I strongly suspect the latter.”
None of us is perfect, and I confess that I’ve never mastered the mysterious skill of speed reading, and so have not and probably will never read all of the previous posts on any of the topics discussed here.
But I’m astonished at your suspicion. Surely a quick web search would be enough to convince any reasonable person that otropogo isn’t any kind of hustler.
“Bottom line, Otro the Disingenuous: get real (as in deal in facts) or get lost.”
Name calling and the bum’s rush – now that’s hurtful
.
Nuclear power is safe, it’s just not absolutely safe. Nothing which produces energy is. In the early days of steam power many more people were killed by boiler explosions and other accidents than have died since the advent of nuclear power. It took a while to develop better metallurgy, better controls and appropriate regulation. Meanwhile we continued building imperfect steam engines and burying the casualties.
Hardwood has roughly twice the energy density of softwood. Coal has roughly twice the energy density of hardwood. Oil has roughly twice the energy density of coal. Since we began burning fuel to power heat engines and free ourselves from the limits of muscle power, we have managed roughly an eightfold increase in energy density by shifting to new fuels.
Nuclear fuel has four million times the energy density of coal. Risk: significant; reward: enormous. Unless there is something better on the horizon, I don’t see how we can walk away from the reward.
If our technical civilization advances, we will use more energy per capita in the future. And if the benefits of technical civilization are made available to more the world’s population, the total energy demand will rise even faster. Wind turbines most definitely can’t keep up; PV solar shows little promise of keeping up. Hydro is terrain limited and can’t be expanded indefinitely.
We can definitely pump more oil, mine more coal and frack more natural gas. But for how long?
If you don’t like fossil fuels, you either embrace nuclear or accept poverty.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 8, 2016 at 7:25 pm
said
Nuclear power is safe, it’s just not absolutely safe. Nothing which produces energy is. In the early days of steam power many more people were killed by boiler explosions and other accidents than have died since the advent of nuclear power…..
Nuclear fuel has four million times the energy density of coal. Risk: significant; reward: enormous. Unless there is something better on the horizon, I don’t see how we can walk away from the reward.”
None of the other fuel sources we have entail a risk of making our environment uninhabitable. It’s madness to risk what one can’t afford to lose. There’s no need to “walk away” from nuclear power. I’d love to have a perfectly safe little nuclear reactor in my home and my vehicles. But birth control seems a more reasonable way to deal with the coming energy shortage than unleashing a flood of ticking nuclear time bombs on the planet.
We don’t actually know how many people may have been killed by nuclear power to date. There’s never been any transparency on that topic. The Kyshtym explosion and contamination in the southern Urals was denied by Soviet and Western officials alike when it was first publicized, and is still waiting to be clarified, Hanford is a continuing mess, so is Chernobyl, and what’s the latest hope on safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel?
We don’t even know how to clean up the nuclear waste issues we already have in the developed world. What sort of messes can we expect in the developing world?
Ogo:
Your comment is such a gross mischaracterization of Ms. Merke1’s knowledge and ability to think rationally and also of the comments on this thread, not to mention laughably inaccurate, that it is obvious you are merely a hu$tler for some power industry in direct competition with nuclear power. Thus, the following is not for you. It is selected facts about nuclear power from the comments above …
FOR ANYONE CONFUSED AFTER READING OGO’S COMMENT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/07/indian-energy-experts-confused-by-green-hostility-to-nuclear-power/#comment-2114839
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/07/indian-energy-experts-confused-by-green-hostility-to-nuclear-power/#comment-2114868
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/07/indian-energy-experts-confused-by-green-hostility-to-nuclear-power/#comment-2115794
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/07/indian-energy-experts-confused-by-green-hostility-to-nuclear-power/#comment-2115740
Bottom line, Ogo: Get honest or get lost.
otropogo Jan 8, 6.38 pm, you are crazy and an insult to Ogopogo!
tobias smit
January 8, 2016 at 11:04 pm
“otropogo Jan 8, 6.38 pm, you are crazy and an insult to Ogopogo!”
You’re barking up the wrong swamp tobias.
@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!
Otropogo still has a point.
Merkel was trained as a scientist, but she is also a professional politician. She was well aware of the sizeable public opposition to nuclear in Germany, an opposition fueled by the repeated instances of crass incompetence/dishonesty/coverup on part of the German nuclear industry. The incident at the Juelich pebble bed reactor illustrates that mindset.
The Fukushima disaster could have been enormously worse. If the winds had been onshore rather than out to sea, the heart of Japan would have been contaminated well beyond any internationally accepted levels for some centuries. A similar disaster in Germany would tear the heart out of the country, no matter which way the winds blow.
It seems to me that this reality is what drove Merkel’s decision, that human error or natural disaster will eventually find a way to screw up even the best designed system. If you can’t face the consequences, you should terminate that approach.
Profiles in Poor Leadership