The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Goes to show how few people are independent of the system

Huh?

Bias is ever-present, especially if you work in the field. I saw one of my best friends over the weekend who works in the field. I have more than a passing interest in nuclear energy. If anything I'm biased for nuclear energy.

But we need newer reactors.

I'm not disparaging the quality or training of the staff. I was criticising the business sense of the people holding the purse strings. So was colin, if I was reading him right. But okay, you want me to bring up France.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/france-loses-enthusiasm-for-nuclear-power/

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-france-renewable-energies.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

France is a big believer in nuclear power. A majority of their grid output is based on it. However, they're also investing in new technologies. They've even started work on a Generation III reactor. So your defense of "look at France" falls flat when France are investing in new nuclear technologies. And renewable sources on the side, which is never a bad thing.

For an older article: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclear-idUSBRE88D1DR20120914

Fukushima emphasised the issues present in maintaining older reactor types. The problems that resulted in the meltdown at Fukushima would arguably not have happened if the reactor hadn't been as old as it was.

Stop thinking like an engineer, that just because it runs it can be safely maintained. Newer reactors are more efficient, waste less fuel and are both safer and more structually-secure to boot. You have to think about the human argument. People need reassurances that nuclear is a safe power source (see the guy below worried about nuclear power). Investing in newer, safer reactors helps people believe this.

It's also a net upgrade.

tl;dr: yes, nuclear reactors were built to last. Thirty years ago. They've lasted. It's time to look at replacing them.

Your viewpoint is the extreme conclusion to my discussion with mered, above. However you are parroting things that are demonstratably false.

1. Core damage is extremely rare. The only notable loss of human life is attributed to Chernobyl. The Three Mile Island incident was safely-contained, and even Fukushima was handled as soon as physically-possible with a great degree of caution.

There have been other incidents, but I think those three rate as the largest nuclear accidents in modern history (well, barring dropping the atomic bomb but let's not get too political here ).

2. Safety measures are important and you should care about them. The reason why Chernobyl went so badly is because the safety measures were disregarded and there was evidence of actual lack of supervision at the plant (from what I remember. Actual historical records are hard to come by, given the political climate of the USSR at the time). The Three Mile Island incident was safely contained because of effective safety measures.

3. Again, Chernobyl (and possibly Fukushima) is the only event whereby radiation has a significant / measurable impact on the surrounding area for generations afterwards. From Wikipedia, on the Three Mile Island incident:

4. Not only do newer reactors not use the same radioactive isotopes as traditional fissionable reactors (and our stockpiles of Uranium-235 are declining anyhow; it's not technically sustainable and is a large part of why fission-based nuclear power isn't classed as renewable), but we have not hit anywhere near the level of nuclear plant usage for storage of waste to be a concern.

Google the waste process for coal plants. Google the number of accidents at coal-powered plants over the past 40 years. Google the number of deaths related to coal mining in the UK alone in the 20th century.

Yes, there has been deaths associated with nuclear power. There have been deaths associated with every kind of power generator ever since we figured out how to set a kite on fire with lightning. This is not new, and this will never change. People die due to accidents, it's horrific.

But they're accidents.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

EDIT: I derped

@Gorbles
i don't care about the safetymeasures or rarity because of the devastating potential damage WHEN such an accident happens and there is still the inhability of dealing with radioactive waste

earth being hit by a meteor is also rare but its potential damage can go up to cataclismic effects ... should we just wait for such a nuclear accident to occur before we wake up? by that time it would be obviously too late ... and the way we messed with global warming those accidents could become worse in the long run ...
this may come off as paranoid but it takes the sum of mistakes before something bigger could happen

and to me humanity rather proofs that it is unable to handle the use of radiating material well ...

who knows how much enviromental damage we actualy did over the last century and are not aware of it

no matter if uranium/plutonium, coal, gas or oil

We currently have no real defense against a meteorite impact. That's, um, not your best argument

If we were truly scared of such cataclysmic events we wouldn't send rockets into space (do you know how easy it is for that to screw up?). We wouldn't use submarines. We wouldn't get on planes. We wouldn't drive cars (do you know the statistical likelihood of fatal car accidents? Surprisingly high!). We wouldn't do skydiving. We wouldn't go diving (Google "the bends", or nitrogen narcosis).

Nuclear is no different from any other power source.

haven't heard about accidents from solarplants windparks or hydroplants so far ... granted they might be no where near as powerful as nuclear power but they sure are far less damaging to the enviroment if something happens to them
... like ... not at all

You were talking about the effect on the world, on the environment, no?

Solar power is the best of the lot, but solar panels are currently one of the least-efficient erngy conversion processes available. It's not cost-effective yet. It's a great secondary source, and isn't even 100% reliant on perfect weather, but we're not there yet.

All other renewable sources have an immediate and noticeable impact on wildlife, the ability for humans to live nearby, and so on. Wind farms take up a lot of land. Like, a lot. That's land that could be used for housing or farming (or nature preserves). Hydroelectric is dependent on dam structures (and dams can fail), or tidal outlets. Tidal power destroys the wildlife around the river ecosystem, too.

But you didn't really answer any of my other examples. You just changed the argument to be only about renewable energy sources. Nobody is arguing about renewable energy sources.

well when i say world why should that not inlcude the enviroment too?
what did you understand when i said world? ..

i mean we spoke about accidents already that wrong use of sources can be and often are damaging to humans, animals and to the enviroment in some way .. be it a meltdown, a oiltransportsleak on the sea or the consequenses of global warming through too much production of CO 2 ... it whas not about preventing accidents per se .. but to entirely avoid accidents that can have a greater effect to the world in general .. global warming is the prime example

tell me that chernobyl or the use of nukes on hiroshima and nagasaki or the nuketest on the bikiniplatough didn´t have longlasting effects on the people and the enviroment there



this article here in german https://tschernobyl-info.de/folgen-und-auswirkungen-von-tschernobyl
says for example (not gonna quote because of characterlimits):

- the ippnw (antinuclear movement) measures about 125.000 people who worked on chenrnobil directly after the accident died of the consequenses of radiation
- 8 million citizens were exposed to fallout which caused a significant increase in varius kinds of cancer
and they measure that till 2065 there will be 31.000 more cases of cancer of various kinds ..
- the state of animals in the contained area is said to be uncertain but they expect increasing gendefects on descendants
- radioaktive particels shall been spread from centraleurope till north skandinavia

what exactly do you want me to answer?

Not surprising considering that Chernobyl was covered up by the government and that the world didn't find out until scandinavian nuclear reactors suddenly saw radiation spikes and checked the wind direction.
Wikipedia:

The second worst incident had no notable radiation deaths.

Saying Chernobyl is your reason not to use fission is like looking at the spaceshuttle and saying that we shouldn't go to space. Chernobyl is a textbook example of people with no knowledge of what to do being in charge.

Just compare it to Fukushima and notice that it can be done better, and Fukushima was still pretty shitty handled.

Significant how? Fukushima reports suggest increases of 1%, which is significant (in the statistical sense). Practically, 1% isn't much. If any of them smoked, it would increase cancer risks by 2500% (that is, 25 times) http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/tobacco-related-cancer-fact-sheet

So 1: it's fixing itself and it's fixing itself fast. 2: there are reports that suggest wildlife never had it better there because the humans are gone.

As to the effects of all that radiation, it doesn't seem to be all that bad.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

Live in the city? does more damage than the fallout. Smoke? higher chance of cancer than the fallout. Don't exercise, eat junkfood? your life expectancy is worse than the result of the fallout.


Not to marginalize nuclear power endlessly, but Chernobyl is a unique event, it won't happen again. It required almost comical levels of ineptitude and human error to get to happen, and it was also an old powerplant with none of the modern safety features. If Fukushima was given proper flooding precautions (which is not expensive or difficult to implement, and it beats my why they didn't think Tsunami's generate floodwaves), it would never have happened.

There are loads of things more killing than the nuclear industry, and plenty of those things are done voluntarily. as far as power goes, nuclear is the safest thing we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Coal: 100 000 deaths per trillion KWH
Oil: 36 000
gas: 4000
wind: 150
nuclear: 90

For the US, Coal is 10 000 and nuclear 0.01. (aka better developed countries = lower casualties)

If you want to think of the casualties of the energy sector, protest oil, gas and coal and don't bother with nuclear.

They knew it could happen, Tsunamis of that level have happened in that area before. But it seemed so unlikely that Tepco rather saved the money. That's the company greed I am talking about @mered4

All those casualty comparisons are good and well, but how many people lost their homes because of having to evacuate? That's the main worry I have about the whole thing in term of accidents.
Sure it doesn't kill you right now, but it takes away your home and adds to your cancer risk.

@Devak that wasn´t from me

So you think it's worse to lose your house than your life? What the ****? A thousand times more lives are taken by the coal industry (per KWH) than the nuclear, and you're concerned about that?

But i'll answer your question: about 150 000 had to be evacuated from Fukushima. Can't find solid number of people who lost their homes, at Three Miles 98% could return to their homes.

Nuclear technology simply has a bad reputation and it causes people to blow things way out of proportion. I already mentioned the Coal industry a few times.

Furthermore, global warming will cause even more damage, and stuff like coal and oil and gas being burned contributes heavily (also see: pollution in my previous post)

Fixed, sorry copy/paste error.

Sure the coal industry sucks, I am not saying we should build more of those

How does one die from an energy source?
My first thought about coal would be the fact that it's all about poisoning the atmosphere and we happen to breath that:
If the local nuclear power plant goes boom I lose access to the place I grew up at. A horror scenario imho.
The local coal plant might slowly poison me, but so do cars, etc. Nothing new, statistical gamble for all of us. Living means engaging in those gambles every day. Feels not very dangerous. Psychology lol.
Really the amount of cookies I eat probably has a bigger impact on my health than air pollution.

Sure if you look at other places (for example in china, india, I think) where the air pollution is waaaaay above any reasonable limit that is a real problem and if nuclear power is a bridge to get rid of that until even better solutions are found then go for it.

Then there is accidents, but mining and processing coal or mining and processing uran is both pretty dangerous. Uran probably more dangerous. Ever read articles about some uran mining operations? Horrific stuff.

The air quality doesn't have to be as poor as china's before it starts costing you years. Particularly fine dust is harmful.

I also don't know how many cookies your eat.

Which is why newer reactor types are better. Even if we completely ignore the thorium reactors (I think there are barium prototypes too), modern reactor designs not only have vastly increased efficiency but they can use the cores until they're basically spent.

Older designs can only use cores until there's a certain percentage left after which the chain reaction doesn't happen as reliably. This leaves more radioactive cores to be disposed of compared to ones consumed by more modern reactor types.

And improved safety mechanisms.

Which brings us back to "old nuclear power plants ruin the image of nuclear technology". E.g. Fukushima was built in 1967 . Chernobyl was built in 1972. Three Miles Island Reactor was built in 1970. Seeing a trend here?

Hell, looking through the list of major accidents, they're almost all built in the 70's.

We can do much better. 40 years ago nuclear power was still relatively fresh. Preferably, we decommission anything over 30 years old and build newer and better plants in their place.

Nobody said newer reactors are not better. I am all for newer reactors, if we have to have nuclear power at least make it top notch. Although I like solutions that do not involve burning stuff or causing nuclear fission even more.

Massive amounts of solar and wind combined with batteries that are a few orders of magnitude better than what we have today sure is the dream. Somebody go invent a better battery technology please, a lot of industries would love those.

There's good work being done on solar but I think given the coverage you need it'll always be an auxillary source for something like a house, and especially for something as hungry as a city grid. It's a very neat route to go down for handheld devices though - some scientists have semi-recently prototyped translucent (or nearly-transparent) solar panelling.

Nuclear is the realistic replacement for traditional fossil fuels at this stage, I feel. And has more worth for financial backing than renewables, unfortunately. Fusion would be the pipe dream, of course, but Generation III (and IV) reactors with an investment into thorium and barium would do us the world of good. Pun intended