Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Great post. I can't help but feel that the "against" stance is predicated on fear. Fear of nuclear proliferation, fear of terrorist attack on waste transport. Not a good foundation for a debate stance IMO.

Fear is a great motivator. People always cite Chernobyl, which was terrible but not a disaster. Only 31 people died and it left 20 miles of land inhabitable (also health care issues arose afterward). More people die daily from auto accidents. Also, Chernobyl's plant designs were old.

Three Mile Island is another one cited. But there's never been any evidence to prove any member of the public was harmed by the incident.

From what little I've read about nuke power is that it's extremely safe and gives a realistically reliable output of energy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^France would agree with you. We need to get past our mamallian fear reflexes and bite the big nuclear bullet.

Aye, and thorium looks safer than a coal plant. Melt down consist of it being dumped into the equivalent of your car radiator, then cooled and pumped back in with no ill effects! I wish I was a crazy rich person so I could fund the hell out of thorium to put in my evil laboratory.

It was very interesting to me to see that they both talked about area footprint of wind/solar, but that their figures were *vastly* different. There are some fairly readily apparent things that contribute to that discrepancy, but not enough to account for it all in my opinion.

First, the pro-nuclear guy was presenting footprint for those resources supplying enough energy for the world's total need, whereas the anti-stance was talking only about powering transportation in the US.

Second, pro-nuclear included spacing and physical arrangement conditions into account for his footprint figures, while anti only considered the area of the base of the tower. I think both of those reporting methods have some useful data; as mentioned the spacing area around the tower bases can be used for agriculture or other production (although there is inconvenience costs associated with that), but there is also the physical reality that you can't cram all of those towers into a condensed area merely the size of their own footprint without the rotors colliding.

Those discrepancies in their arguments remind me of pro and anti ethanol talking points. I come from Kansas, and my family operates a farm that produces wheat and corn. Ten years ago, basically 100% of the corn production from my family's farm was sold to feedlots as food for cattle. About 5 years ago, an ethanol plant was built fairly close to our farmland, and so since then an average of roughly 50% has gone there instead (that figure changes a lot over time, but over a sum total of the past 5 years I figure 50% is ballpark). The remainder still goes to the beef industry. We determine who to sell corn to without any thought for pro/anti beef-ethanol advocacy, and just consider sale price minus self-delivery and other costs (shipping further costs more, etc.)

Anyway, the pro-ethanol people will butter you up with talk about "freeing ourselves from foreign oil", say that ethanol is better for the environment, etc. etc. The anti people write letters claiming that ethanol production is actually an energy-draining exercise -- that we use more energy to produce 1 unit of ethanol that we can gain from using that unit as fuel.

My uncle (basically the boss of the family farm) was interested in that claim so he decided to try to calculate it out, making best-guess estimates where necessary. What he came up with was that the anti-ethanol people were correct -- for the first 1-5 years of operation of an ethanol plant, and only if they include absolutely every expenditure of fuel even remotely associated with the production of the corn or other input AND the construction and operation of the plant itself. For example, including the diesel fuel consumption of every tractor, combine, irrigation wells/motors, etc. and suggesting that all of that consumption is entirely devoted to ethanol production; ie. that that fuel would not be used if the crop produced wasn't being turned into ethanol.

I didn't do the calculations myself, and I don't even really mean to suggest that I stand by them being correct. What I do think is relevant is that it shows that it is very very easy to present a fairly compelling argument for or against essentially anything by being selective about what data is included and how it is presented. This is particularly true for anything that involves large amounts of data and is fairly complex. So basically, while I *wish* that being honest, open, and thorough provided the best results in terms of winning a debate such as this, there is a lot to be said about the potential utility for massaging the data and preying on complexity and ignorance.

(Sorry for the long babble.)

>> ^blankfist:

Fear is a great motivator. People always cite Chernobyl, which was terrible but not a disaster. Only 31 people died and it left 20 miles of land inhabitable (also health care issues arose afterward). More people die daily from auto accidents. Also, Chernobyl's plant designs were old.
Three Mile Island is another one cited. But there's never been any evidence to prove any member of the public was harmed by the incident.
From what little I've read about nuke power is that it's extremely safe and gives a realistically reliable output of energy.


There is still areas in Sweden where you can't pick blueberries because of the high radiation from the Chernobyl fallout. I'm not taking a stance on the nuclear power debate, just saying that Chernobyl was a much bigger disaster than the people who died in the actual power plant.

As for the debate in this video, it seemed like the one part was arguing for the situation we have, with nuclear power being the most viable option for large scale needs, while the other side argued for a situation that we may have in the future while propagating fear and suspicion against the other side. But people have such deeply rooted bias and preconceptions about this issue that the vast majority will only listen to the side that argues and reassures their standing opinion, and reject the opposition outright.

Chernobyl was caused by Soviet incompetence. It has little relevance to modern nuclear plants.

While the technology catches up to make wind/wave/solar cheap enough to set up and run to make sense, I'd like to see us working on having some nuclear power plants to provide the base energy source for times when we might see our weather become unreliable for any reason.

There is plenty of land in the world and as the man said, the windy mills can be off shore. I don't worry so much about how much space they take up, but rather more about how efficient the beasts are in comparison to the resources they consume to make, setup, transport and run.

It would be nice if we could have both working well

Nuclear power is the best fast and effecient substitute for coal and oil. Ideally we'd all just use solar, wind and geothermal, but this is not an ideal world and we need to end our dependence (or lessen it) asap.

I think that Brand did do a better job presenting his side of this debate than Jacobson, but I think it is interesting that in spite of his excellent performance, a room full of some of the most educated minds in the English world shifted 10% away from nuclear by the end of the twenty-three minute discussion.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear power is the best fast and effecient substitute for coal and oil. Ideally we'd all just use solar, wind and geothermal, but this is not an ideal world and we need to end our dependence (or lessen it) asap.


Why are those ideal? They are an eye sore and take up vast amounts of space, and at times, in what used to be nice habitats. Daming up rivers and strip clearing land for wind and solar seem to be a step backwards for the goal. In my mind, the ideal is a little power plant that powers the whole world. It seems thermodynamically speaking you have 3 options: To burn stuff that is energetic, to harness small pools of energy over large amounts of space, or to have a high level energy reaction that is potentially volatile. Fusion does seem like the answer once we get it, its volatility is unlike nuclear. The volatility of fusion, from my understanding, is trying to maintain the reaction. Catastrophic failure means a reactor restart, not a meltdown. So you get high energy density, stability (of power output levels), low risk, low pollution. The same is true of fission reactors, except they aren't "as" safe, or "as" clean as some of the alternatives. But the type of clean they ARE (low co2) is exactly what we want.

Does anyone else disagree with the characterisation of nuclear (fission) power as renewable?

I'm still for it but that annoys me.

Also, I'd like to see costs. I was always under the impression that nuclear power was cheaper.

"This is not rocket science."

No, rocket science has a basis in reality.

RANT:

Jacobson's arguments were simply ridiculous; the stand out being his lead-in time coal-burning CO2 adding to nuclear's output for every plant. No stupid, you build the next generation of nuclear plants before the last one expires. You don't let all your nuclear plants die, then wait twenty years burning fossil fuels before any more go up. This is a cost the world only has to pay ONCE, ever, and it would already be behind us if the fucking hippies weren't holding up construction of desperately needed new plants with their faux-environmentalist rhetoric. And how long does he imagine it would take to convert the world to alternative energy? Better add all the CO2 generated in that time to the alternative sources as well, wow, solar power's really bad for the environment. Disingenuous much?

Then there's the paranoid babble about nuclear power plants enabling nuclear weapon production. Yeah, like science and roads. He actually stands up in front of an audience of live people and adds NUCLEAR WAR to air pollution statistics. Tosser.

Electricity is the lifeblood of our civilisation, for fuck's sake, this man is cholesterol.

Thorium info:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

edit: Additionally, factoring in war as a cost of nuke plants is crazy. Humans will always fight over whatever natural resources they can. You can't factor that (relatively) intangible aspect into real data.

Well said, Gorillaman.

Another fun fact that isn't mentioned is that uranium can be had from some pretty stable countries: Australia, Canada, Brazil (and some less stable ones).

I would also like to submit that Jacobson sounds like Ray Romano.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yeah the scare tactics on the nukes is cheap and probably very misguided. If anything, a global push for nuclear power would lead to a better system of control and monitoring of fissile materials.

The nuclear genie is out of the lamp - we need to deal with a world where many countries have the technology to create a nuclear weapon - because it's happening whether we like it or not.

I take both.
Nuclear is more of a solution for now.
But not forever.

I keep holding out for fusion.

And the beauty of that is that the bigger the fission industry becomes, the more brains will be drawn towards it - brains that could maybe solve the fusion problem. I'm hoping to start a phd in nuclear physics next year and it's painfully obvious the industry wants all the students they can get. Apparently nuclear research stopped being sexy to students years ago.>> ^kingmob:

I take both.
Nuclear is more of a solution for now.
But not forever.
I keep holding out for fusion.

>> ^chilaxe:

Chernobyl was caused by Soviet incompetence. It has little relevance to modern nuclear plants.


As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.

>> ^lampishthing:

Does anyone else disagree with the characterisation of nuclear (fission) power as renewable?
I'm still for it but that annoys me.
Also, I'd like to see costs. I was always under the impression that nuclear power was cheaper.


Seeing as how much there is, it is quite renewable:

How long can Uranium last for nuclear power ? 5 billion years at double current world electricity usage.

Breeder reactors can transmute non-fissile Uranium to fissile Uranium. So that means you can burn up almost all the Uranium. This includes all the so called nuclear waste. This can also be burnt in a similar process, leaving you with virtually no waste.

Don't have the time to watch this right now but surely the question should be not whether we need it, but whether we have sufficiently grounds to ban its use?

>> ^dag:

Yeah the scare tactics on the nukes is cheap and probably very misguided. If anything, a global push for nuclear power would lead to a better system of control and monitoring of fissile materials.


Yeah, putting bombs into the debate was stupid.

But seriously: Controlling the distribution of nuclear material by putting more of it out there?

The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.

That's the bottom line.

They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.

It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.

But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

Frankly, I don't even see a need to move to nuclear - let alone solar/wind/tidal. The U.S. has enough oil and coal to supply its own energy needs for the next 40 to 60 years. We've got the technology to use fossil fuels cleanly and make very little mess when getting them. And it is far cheaper than any other form of energy. Why deny ourselves the use of this cheap, efficient, effective resource?

Nuclear is fine - but the environmental lobby doesn't want nuclear power plants and litigates the pants off anyone who tries to build one. Well - the same environuts don't want wind farms either. They don't want solar farms. They don't want tidal farms. They don't want anything at all. You name it. They oppose it.

Frankly it is time we stopped giving any degree of credibility or attention to environmentalist groups who object to energy policy. Their demands are unreasonable and unrealistic. Let's work on Solar/Wind/Tidal - but let's not go there until it is ready. And all objective analysis indicates that these 'green' energy forms are NOT ready to do squat. We need fossil, and we're going to need it big time for the next 50 years so let's go get it and stop listening to the dummies who don't like it.

Sadly - one of those dummies is Obama and he's shamelessly using the spill to try and shut down oil and coal right now. Hope you like $10 a gallon gas, 45% increases in your electrical bill, and 100% increases in your natural gas costs - because that's what Obama has planned for you with his dumb@$$ 'energy policy'. And get ready for business to pass the cost on to you for the increases in all their costs. Hooray for Democrat policy. "No taxes for the poor..." Yeah, right...

>> ^rougy:

The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.


The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.

That's the bottom line.

They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.

It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.

But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.

>> ^dingens:

>> ^chilaxe:
Chernobyl was caused by Soviet incompetence. It has little relevance to modern nuclear plants.

As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.


Technology can fail, but some technologies are more likely to fail than others. Oil drilling exhibits a predictable rate of disasters. In contrast, what's been the total cost of nuclear failures in all Western countries over the last 50 years? Seemingly a negligible amount.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^dingens:
>> ^chilaxe:
Chernobyl was caused by Soviet incompetence. It has little relevance to modern nuclear plants.

As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.

Technology can fail, but some technologies are more likely to fail than others. Oil drilling exhibits a predictable rate of disasters. In contrast, what's been the total cost of nuclear failures in all Western countries over the last 50 years? Seemingly a negligible amount.


I don't want to compare oil spills and nuclear accidents (and I don't think, they can be compared that easily), but I think we can agree on this:
Technology can fail and humans can fail.

To be fair, the Soviets had many chances and a lot of time to stop Chernobyl from melting down by dropping the core into a giant lead and graphite plug that would seal it and stop the reaction. That is what they were supposed to do if a melt down started. However doing this ruins the plant and turns it into a giant paper weight. The engineers at Chernobyl repeatedly asked permission to drop the core and were denied by the government. In America, if a melt down was immanent, the plant engineers would drop the core because they wouldn't have to ask permission from the president to do so. The Soviets could have averted disaster by sacrificing their plant, but chose to try and stop the reaction AND save the plant so they didn't look foolish to the rest of the world. Uninformed, uneducated politicians were responsible for the Chernobyl disaster, not poor technology or incompetent engineers.


>> ^dingens:

As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.

I love TED talks. One thing briefly touched on in the debate is how nuclear waste is now recycleable, and while there will always be some waste it is reassuring to know that existing stockpiles of waste are now beginning to be reprocessed.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted. ...<snip>...
The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Your analogy isn't quite true. Unlike the solar industry, there is a concentration of power/production in the petroleum and nuclear industries which breaks your comparison continuation.

^

Make no mistake that ANY power source that reaches a decent percentage of global production will be dominantly controlled by only a select few massive corporations, nuclear and oil are by no means special in that regard.

As long as producing solar panels requires large factories to produce them in any quantity the control of that production will be no different from control over oil production today.

You're still a fucking idiot.

The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.

Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.

>> ^rougy:

You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.



Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

1. One point that was vastly un underlined, was that if this is a debate about how to combat global warming without reducing our electricity consumption, how long it would take for the coal-replacing energy source to go live is vitally important. If we indeed would have to wait close to 20 years for the nuclear plants to be built, that's too long. At the very least, we need both to be built immediately, and when the nukes go live, then we can decide if we still want the other.

2. A point that amazingly wasn't mentioned at all by the anti- side is the environmental damage caused by irresponsible uranium mining.

3. The most irresponsible point was when the pro- guy compared one person's lifetime nuclear emissions to a 1GW plant's daily carbon emissions. The three problems:

* a person's power consumption is not equal to a 1GW power plant's output
* a human lifetime is not one day
* the environmental damage of captured nuclear waste by mass is not the environmental damage of released CO2 by mass

So comparing a Coke can to a railway train is meaningless.

Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

Funny, I got the impression you were the one opposing nuclear power as a solution. It seems your criticism of every solution is to define it as part of the problem.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf.

And I never said any of that. I called you out for claiming that solar panels are clean and tidy compared to nuclear, and safe from systematic problems that come with major corporations cutting corners on a massive scale. The most efficient solar cells today contain heavy metals in them like cadmium. If you replace the world's current electric capacity with nothing but solar panels, the disposal of old panels will NOT be a problem one can ignore. The temptation to save costs by disposing of them cheaply and ignoring contamination will be as great as it is with any other industry you decry today. Sure, the disposal is a problem that can be easily handled, but so is the disposal of old nuclear fuel...

"One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years."

When you say 'deadly', I say 'useful'. Here in Canada we run our nuclear reactors on fuel rods made from American nuclear 'waste'. Simply put, any waste that still has high radioactivity is also still useful as a power source. It's not waste to be stored for eons, it's future fuel being stored for later use.

"Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy."

Right, and your the one suggesting we trust Bubba not to dump his cadmium filled solar panels in his backyard somewhere to save a few bucks.

Both solar and nuclear have their own issues, but we have methods of handling those problems for nuclear already, today. For solar the biggest unsolved problem is that they just don't work well enough at a reasonable price. Maybe someday they'll improve enough to supplement the nuclear delivered base load, but until then nuclear is a very desirable replacement for coal and oil.

Okay @bcglorf, by the numbers:

"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.

The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."

(source)

"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."

(source)

This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?

>> ^rougy:

Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?


No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.

The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!

Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

As Max S. Power (an analyst who worked on nuclear cleanup issues for two decades ), points out, “...in the 1980s, (U.S.) Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment concluded ‘reprocessing’ which generates additional radioactive waste streams and involves operational risks of its own, does not offer advantages that are sufficient to justify its use for waste management reasons alone.’”

According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, “Reprocessing is the fundamental link between a nuclear reactor and a plutonium bomb.” The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted that “reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation.”

Reprocessing is also responsible for considerable radioactive land and water pollution; for example from the British and French reprocessing operations at Sellafield and La Hague respectively. Originating from Sellafield sources, the Irish sea merits the dubious distinction of being called the most radioactive body of water in the world. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability says that “France's reprocessing plant at La Hague routinely discharges into the English Channel so-called low-level liquid radioactive waste which has contaminated seas as far away as the Arctic Circle.”

(source)

Looks like that whole "reprocessing" thing you talked about does nothing but create even more waste.

You're honest-to-god equating the "dangers" of solar cell production with nuclear waste.

Why am I not surprised?

Again, you just ignored the facts that I presented to you.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?

No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.
The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!
Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

@bcglorf, here's some more reality for you to ignore:

There are two million high-level radioactive fuel bundles sitting at temporary storage sites in Canada, as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization wrestles with the mandate of finding a community to host a central storage facility for the waste for perhaps tens of thousands of years.

Throw in the fact that the cost of storing this nuclear waste could be up to $24 billion — a figure that will likely rise — and environmental groups are dead set against a central facility, and it shapes up to be a challenge of colossal proportions.

(CBC News)

^Reading comprehension and selective quoting seem to be your strong suits.

The cbc article you link also includes mention that each 'bundle' is the size of a firelog. It mentions that the science for storage was sound, but public fears, like yours, made central storage impractical DESPITE the science being sound. It also mentions that after 500 years, you need to eat it to present a health threat. It also lists Canada's annual nuclear waste production at 1,200 tonnes a year, not exactly an unmanageable problem. In fact, it is a desirable problem considering how many more tonnes of coal ash is simply getting thrown into the atmosphere instead because people like you cry nuclear is scary.

Solar power isn't ready to replace our world's coal plants. Nuclear power is, and the only thing stopping it is irrational fear mongers like you who can't even read the articles you claim should scare us all.

@bcglorf

About 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles are generated in Canada each year.

As of December 32, 2007, there were over 2,000,000 nuclear fuel bundles in Canada.

(source)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
High Level Waste

Over 99 percent of the radioactivity created by a nuclear reactor is contained in the spent fuel. An unprotected individual standing one metre from a CANDU fuel bundle just out of the reactor would receive a lethal dose in seconds. This intensely radioactive material is called high level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel contains hundreds of radioactive substances created inside the reactors: (1) when uranium atoms split, the fragments are radioactive; these are the "fission products"; (2) when uranium atoms absorb neutrons without splitting, they are transmuted into "transuranium elements" such as plutonium, americium, and curium.

Due to the presence of these toxic materials, spent fuel remains extremely dangerous for millions of years.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Decommissioning Wastes

Structural materials in the core of an operating reactor become radioactive from neutron bombardment. The cost of dismantling such a radioactive structure approaches the cost of building it in the first place.

Current plans are to wait forty years, then use underwater cutting techniques to minimize radiation exposures to the workers. Hundreds of truckloads of radioactive rubble will result from each dismantled reactor.

(source)

And I'd like to see your work regarding the claim of how dirty or dangerous solar cells are.

And let's keep in mind cells are not the only form of solar energy.

And don't try to deny the fact that your solution to replace a dangerous, dirty energy technology (coal & oil) was to use an already existing dangerous and dirty energy technology (nuclear).

I hope my country will take to nuclear as the alternative to coal and oil until a power source is invented that can surpass it. Because I don't think solar or water can nor will be able to produce nearly close to the amount of usable energy of a nuclear plant. And compared to the (in my mind) completely safe and environmentally clean energy of nuclear power; wind, water and solar do have a negative effect on the wildlife.

The manufacture of solar panels requires the use of toxic elements such as cadmium, lead, mercury, et al... The productive lifespan of a solar cell is 20 to 25 years. Over a 20 year time frame, 1 square foot of solar panelling will generate about 360kWh of electricity.

The average household uses 1,000kWh a month. This would require 666 sq ft of solar paneling. There were 105 million households in the US in 2000. This means to supply only the residential needs of the U.S. we would need 70 BILLION square feet of solar paneling every 20 years. Those facile with math will note this is 2,590 square miles – enough to cover the entire state of Rhode Island. Twice. This doesn’t include the batteries and inverters each system will require… It also doesn't account for each household taking on the potential additional electrical load of charging up an EV every day...

The cost? $50,000 per household. Given average household utility costs, it will take the full 20 year lifespan of the system for the investment to accomplished nothing more than to have paid for its own 'cost' in household utility savings. And at that time you'll have to buy it all over again...

Solar power is currently a pipe dream. We do not have the technology either in solar cells or batteries to make it efficient or cost effective. Even the kindest estimate puts viable solar power for residential use a full 30 years down the road. Now is not the time. Fossil and Nuclear for the win.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


The average household uses 1,000kWh a month. This would require 666 sq ft of solar paneling. There were 105 million households in the US in 2000. This means to supply only the residential needs of the U.S. we would need 70 BILLION square feet of solar paneling every 20 years. Those facile with math will note this is 2,590 square miles...

...Or 1/2 the rooftops of New York, L.A. and Los Vegas.

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big. I have some friends that are _completely off the grid_ using this much solar a small windmill. Land space is an invalid argument against solar power.

And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household. My friends, who have no bills for electricity or heating, had their system (including the windmill and battery storage system) installed for just over $10,000 (CDN.) To run powerlines to their house would have cost $15,000, and they would have still had to pay the electric company monthly fees for lights. Yes it was a small loan, but in 5 years that will be paid off, and there will be no more bills, save a little engine oil for the windmill. Whoever is quoting you numbers like $50k per home is misleading you.

It isn't a pipe dream. People are doing it.

Why do you have such a blind allegiance to the republican ideals?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The manufacture of solar panels requires the use of toxic elements such as cadmium, lead, mercury, et al...

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big.

Elementary geometry says you need TWENTY 6'x5' panels to get 600 sq feet. Regardless, the issue is not the surface area per se but the COST to cover that much surface area. Photovolt panels are expensive, highly inefficient, and use toxic elements. They need maintainance, replacing, repair, and have a lifecycle. Same with the VERY expensive batteries you need to buy.

And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household.

Many estimates put the installation of a fully functional solar powered home at well over $50K. 660 sq ft costs $10,853 just for the panels using the cheapest product I could find. Then there is wiring, connectors, inverters, batteries, mounts, control panels, and monitors... The backhills of Alberta may be different, but in the U.S. it is highly illegal to install your own electrical system... You're looking at thousands in licensing, regulatory, and labor. $10K? Not on this planet.

But let's say you're super lucky and manage to get the whole shebang installed for only $25K somehow. That's about $150 a year in savings over 20 years versus fossil, or $13 a month. Is that worth it? Well, no. There's a reason people don't buy 20 years of food at once in order to save a few pennies a day. Same goes here.

Imagine you install your cool new solar system and 5 years later you lose your job. Unless you make up the cost in the sale of your house, you just lost $15K pal. Good luck selling your house when you're charging $15K more than the guy down the street... And get ready to pay ANOTHER $20K to install your new system in your next house... Oh nos! You need to move again in 3 years...? (Sad trombone...)

Solar is OK for heating water. It sucks for general purpose electrical needs. It is a pipe dream, because it can't be done in a way that makes sense because the technology is still too expensive. Yeah - people are 'doing' it... People are also 'doing' hydrogen fuel cells for cars but 99.99% of the population can't afford the $100,000 price tag.

Why do you have such a blind allegiance to the republican ideals?

I'm not a Republican, so I'm not even sure what you mean by this. This has nothing to do with politics. This is about common sense and what is actually possible with real-world physics and economics. I realize such things are problematic obstacles to people who are blinded by political blinders - but they still matter on planet Earth.

Hey Winston,
Sorry a couple of points I was trying to make got a little muddled and mashed together in my last comment during editing before I rushed out to work. Including my math on 6x10.

What I told youabout my friends building a house and being off the grid is true. I know because they did it, and I've seen it. Their house is in Quebec, not some backhills somewhere. I've been there. They made me pizza.

Yeah, I'm sure that they're paying some interest on the loan they got to pay for it all up front, but they did it for less than $11,000. And fully installed by electricians. They're fully off the grid for electricity. They use a gas stove instead of electric, and they don't have a microwave, in order to cut down on power drain. But they have a fridge, lights, hot water, computers and everything else you would expect a family home to have.

I don't know where you got the rest of your figures. All I can tell you is what I've seen with my own eyes. And that the tomatoes on the pizza were grown in their vegetable garden, the pepperoni sausage came from the meat shop a 10 minute drive away, and it made for a memorable meal.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big.
Elementary geometry says you need TWENTY 6'x5' panels to get 600 sq feet. Regardless, the issue is not the surface area per se but the COST to cover that much surface area. Photovolt panels are expensive, highly inefficient, and use toxic elements. They need maintainance, replacing, repair, and have a lifecycle. Same with the VERY expensive batteries you need to buy.
And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household.
Many estimates put the installation of a fully functional solar powered home at well over $50K. 660 sq ft costs $10,853 just for the panels using the cheapest product I could find. Then there is wiring, connectors, inverters, batteries, mounts, control panels, and monitors... The backhills of Alberta may be different, but in the U.S. it is highly illegal to install your own electrical system... You're looking at thousands in licensing, regulatory, and labor. $10K? Not on this planet.
But let's say you're super lucky and manage to get the whole shebang installed for only $25K somehow. [...]

They made me pizza. Yeah, I'm sure that they're paying some interest on the loan they got to pay for it all up front, but they did it for less than $11,000.

Pulling this selection as a quote is just hilarious.

But on to the point. I'm citing real figures from real websites that sell real systems and equipment. I don't doubt there are some people out there who know a guy who knew a guy whose cousin's sister's brother knew a guy who was able to get them stuff really cheap. But that sort of thing is not normal. 99.9% of the public is going to have to buy the material at retail cost and pay government approved professional UNION contractors to install it. Every 'real world' pricing I've done on 600+ square feet of photovolt solar paneling (with all associated batteries, fixtures, wiring & controls) has easily shot into the $35,000 range BEFORE factoring in the installation labor costs. Grats on your Quebecian getting lucky on his pricing. But not in a billion years does it imply everyone on the planet can get their solared up for 10K or less.

Glad you brought up the interest though. I'd totally missed that. Factoring in the interest on the $50,000 loans people are going to have to take out to install this mess, you are looking at a real-world cost of well over $75,000. Yeah - solar power for residential electrical needs is for idiots.

UPDATE: As of February 2014 ALL coastline of California now reads CPM's as high as the exposure at 40,000 ft while flying in a commercial jet from cosmic radiation....Check incidences of cancer in commercial airline pilots vs. folks on the ground, and move inland if you are taken to windy walks on the beachfront in Cali, peeps...Cali coast and the fishes therein from that side of the Pacific are already fucked for centuries.