Recent Comments by GeeSussFreeK subscribe to this feed

Two Examples Of Anti-Science Politics Side-By-Side

GeeSussFreeK says...

Other interesting anti-science partisan issues are GMO/biotech, nuclear power, evolution, big bang, vaccines, AIDS, fracking, organic foods, vitamin supplements, and a host of others. Note that many of those are pegged in liberal circles as well, anti-science is a bipartisan issue, just depends on the issue.

Truth in Media: Vaccine Court and Autism

GeeSussFreeK says...

8:53 seconds, he gives credence to the idea that there is some conspiracy to suppress studies that there is a link with autism and vaccines. He makes a separate point about trials and courts from that directly after, but lots of technical high risk industries have protections like this. Nuclear power does, aircraft manufactures do as well, hell, corporations and other constructs are created to limit liability as well...this is nothing new really. I know I am glad that working a company doesn't make me liable for damages filed against that company, the same for a doctor that gives a vaccine. The entire tone of the video is just too conspiratorial for me to appreciate, perhaps that is just a taste thing, though.

blankfist said:

*promote

No one in the video claims that autism is caused by vaccines. They're bringing to light the vaccine court which has paid out settlements for autism cases. And that the pharm companies cannot be held individually liable. Why is that getting downvoted?

Politicians Denying Climate Change ...Because of God

Truth in Media: Vaccine Court and Autism

Cassini's "Wave At Saturn" Revealed

GeeSussFreeK says...

Shameless self promote, I think this is pretty rad. Being that I haven't been posting stuff as often of late, I imagine I don't have the star power to get this seen. So to that end, try and fly high into peoples hearts and minds Saturn! *promote

chicchorea (Member Profile)

James Hansen on Nuclear power and Climate Change

GeeSussFreeK says...

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

ghark said:

Reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium? Then where is weapons grade plutonium made? I think you'll find that it's made in exactly the same reactors as there is no real distinction between a reactor used for power generation and weapons generation other than in name.

"Uranium ore contains only about 0.7% of the fissile isotope U235. In order to be suitable for use as a nuclear fuel for generating electricity it must be processed (by separation) to contain about 3% of U235 (this form is called Low Enriched Uranium - LEU). Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to 90% of U235 (Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU), which can be done using the same enrichment equipment. There are about 38 working enrichment facilities in 16 countries"
http://www.cnduk.org/get-involved/parliamentary/item/579-the-links-between-nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons

The point is that continuation of current tech makes it a lot more economical to produce weapons tech, whether that be weapons grade plutonium or depleted uranium (DU). Reactors can cost upwards of ten billion dollars to build, why would a weapons manufacturer want to pay for one of those out of their own pocket when they can have the taxpayer's pay for nuclear power plants that can produce what they need?

"Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power"
- Dr. Amory Lovins (from NEIS)

In terms of renewables:, the 'new' renewables only account for about 3% of total energy use, so if that's what he meant then he's not far off. Stats from IEA, however, state that wind has had an average growth rate of 25% over the past five years, while solar has averaged an annual growth rate of over 50% in the same period. So their impact is increasing fairly rapidly. So I'm not sure why he's so pessimistic about them when the IEA is not.

Have environmental groups specifically spoken out against the type of nuclear reactors he is talking about? Which ones?

James Hansen on Nuclear power and Climate Change

GeeSussFreeK says...

I think that you will find reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium, rather, they produce a grade of plutonium known as reactor grade. Weapons grade plutonium is upwards of 95% Pu239. Reactor grade plutonium is what is known as weapons usable, not weapons ready. This is because of the high contamination factor of Pu240, Pu241, and Pu242. These heavier breads of Pu have both high spontaneous fission rates (bad for your fission weapon), and considerable heat, enough so to make weapons fabrication a problem (is it bad when your closed weapons device needs ventilation to not melt itself). While these problems are addressable in advanced weapons platforms, outside of well established nuclear weapons programs, making weapons from them is very challenging.

The main trouble, however, I think is economics, and nuclear is forced to internalize many of their impacts where as other solutions, mainly fossil fuels, do not. That is a pretty key competitive disadvantage.

Also note that electricity is only a fraction of total power, total power includes many non-electrical uses, most notably motor vehicles via liquid fuels. When you look at solar in this light, it represents a sub-fraction of a percent. So 5% of annual solar electrical generation is only a small part of a larger energy picture, and picture which also needs to be weighted against the rest of the world for which solar provides very little power. This isn't an attack on solar, it is a bringing to light of how vast the gulf is to address climate issues with any one technology.

So I think you will find that he isn't off by orders of magnitude, rather, he was being pretty generous to the total amount of energy produced by solar and wind world wide, and climate issues and emissions are world issues.

Key World Energy STATISTICS IEA:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

(I trust the IEA's numbers)

But I share the sentiment that we need to reduce coal and gas to address climate concerns. The fact that German emissions have risen for 2 years in a row is troubling to say the least. I consider France and Sweden to be better models, lower CO2 per capita and electrical prices in both cases compared to Germany, and both heavy nuclear users...with Sweden using a fair deal more hydro power than France. Nuclear and hydro are the proven heavy lifters in the area of CO2 reductions, which is why I think his criticism of environmental groups in addressing climate issues is justified as they generally oppose both.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2012 IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/12-44581_ccnp2012_web.pdf

ghark said:

Hrm, interesting talk, but a lot of his arguments seem to be pretty misguided or just plain wrong.

He spends most of the video blaming environmentalists for the various energy problems, however it's a lot more complicated than that. The primary reason Govt's like those in America won't stop using current nuclear tech is because it generates weapons grade materials that can be used by the military-industrial (etc) complex. The lobbyists for these industries have way too much money to throw around for any other pressure to be meaningful. This means that pushing through cleaner nuclear power solutions will be next to impossible despite whatever pressure is applied by environmentalist groups for or against the various solutions.

Also, the fact that he states wind/solar etc only contribute 1% of supply and can't contribute enough to satisfy consumer needs is extremely misguided. That may be the case where he's from (currently), but if you look at the latest EU statistics, wind, by itself is already accounting for 5% of all energy demand, and the contribution is much higher in some countries, i.e. Germany=10%, Denmark=25% (just from wind).

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/statistics/Stats_2011.pdf

Solar also contributes a significant amount, supplying 5% of all needs in Germany for example (50% of midday demands), and the technology is only improving.

Despite him being completely (by orders of magnitude) wrong in this respect, his statement probably does makes sense if you only apply it to America, because their political system is completely fucked, but he should be honest about that in his discussion if he's really done his research.

He does make some very valid points however, and I certainly hope the realisation of better nuclear power does come true in our lifetimes so we can continue to accelerate the move away off coal/gas.

Wes Anderson - The Grand Budapest Hotel (Trailer)

Bill Burr Teaches Elijah Wood How To Kill

GeeSussFreeK says...

Nothing wrong with irrational fears right? I am afraid to fly so I ride the train when I can, nothing wrong with owning a gun if your afraid of maniacs busting down the door! But it isn't as bad as the comedian is making out, he's just doing his job of being silly. To that end, I haven't owned a gun, but my roomies had...it's just not that big of a deal here in the states.

Kind of reminds me of how I thought of drinking when I was a young, conservative christian boy. Beer and drinking had this mystique in my mind. Being constantly exposed to it, now it is no big deal. Same with guns, guns are just a thing like other things. Unless you were talking about the situation being ridiculous, then I would have to agree. But when I am alone, I do worry a bit more about home invasion and lock up tight. I haven't had the idea to buy a gun, but mostly because I don't trust myself with one.

iaui said:

I almost want to invoke *regio n... This is totally nuts. Seriously, is this what people in America worry about? Is this... possible? I guess these are plausible scenarios but in Canada... this stuff just does not happen...

Black Opal from Lightning Ridge

Michelle Jenneke - Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2013

Biggest Thing in the Universe - Sixty Symbols

Stardust

ThePianoGuys on an ice rink - We Three Kings



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon