A new nuclear freeze?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

We probably all saw this coming, but a few days after the 9.0 earthquake and subsequent nuclear incident in Japan, the pressure is already increasing to kill the future of nuclear power.

Google "Nuclear power" today and the initial signs of this pressure are already all over the place.

While I personally love the idea of a country of citizens each with their own solar/wind power generating units, the likelyhood of having such a one-note energy solution as opposed to a mixed-source one is highly unlikely and completely unfeasable. We are going to need more energy than that, and dotting every square inch of open space to capture the diffuse nature of wind and solar needed to supplant the difference all the less 'clean' forms of energy currently supplies seems like a rather destructive way to protect the environment that we're supposedly doing this for.

There's lots of things we're doing with nuclear that can be improved (like minimizing risk from waste by using breeder reactors if the law permitted it in the US).

To sum up, we're going to have to face the fact that nuclear will likely be a necessary part of the picture. Risks of an event like the one in Japan will always be present. But risk is inherent in every form of energy production. You're going to have to risk damaging more open space collecting diffuse energy with wind or solar. You're going to have to risk the 1-every-hundred-plus-year incident with nuclear. With fossil fuels, the risk is emissions.

Until viable, economically self-sustaining fusion reactions are successfully harnessed for commercial production, we have little else to choose from other than various forms the risk takes the shape of.

I turn it over to the community for your thoughts.

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Why kill it instead of improve it? Because it's easier? Not only do I not think it's easier, it's not cheaper to kill it.

Then, substitute it with what? Wind turbines? LOL.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I don't want to kill it. Nowhere did I suggest that's what I want to see. Quite the contrary, actually.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In my view this is an example that oil is not the only energy source with the potential to do very, very bad things if using it goes remotely wrong. However in my view nuclear energy can and does work well in other countries with much better, newer, and more tightly regulated power plants as opposed to building a place to hold nuclear waste and then suddenly deciding "Nah we don't want to use it." Unfortunately there is no source of energy that lacks for potential to create very, very horrible messes when used.......

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

In theory, fusion reaction carries no radiological threat (the rate of decomposition is too fast to notice) and no waste issues. But it's still decades off from viability.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Diversification of the energy sources is key. There should be multiple sources. Currently Russia has been re-organizing its nuclear energy industry, building 40 new-generation reactors domestically and another 30 worldwide in various countries, mostly in Asia and Eastern Europe (through its state monopoly companies). We have an old nuclear station plant here in Kozlodui (currently with 3 reactors), and we're at an advanced stage of negotiations with the Russians for building another one in Belene (with 2 more reactors). We used to export electricity to Greece, Turkey and Romania at times of need, but then half of the facilities in Kozlodui had to be closed 3 years before their term had expired - as part of EU's demands conditions for EU entry.

It's all part of a big game. The West is pushing for energy domination on the market in the region, while Russia is hurrying to fill back the niche which opened after the collapse of their energy monopoly post-USSR. They've orientated themselves into resource-based export, and are expanding fast into new technology areas and are leading in this new scramble for the energy routes into Europe and the Mideast. They have two new projects for gas and oil supply pipelines, one bypassing the unfriendly Poland along the Baltic sea bottom and the other bypassing the rival Turkey along the Black sea bottom.

As far as nuclear, they've overhauled their technology research and are hurrying to take the European and Chinese markets while it's early enough. The gas crisis with Ukraine was just a small hint what expects Western and Central Europe if they don't comply with Russia's policies, and what power the energy tool has for geopolitical games. Same thing with nuclear technology: the Russians are trying to appropriate most key tools for pulling the strings in the region, and all the West can do at this point is to grind their teeth with irritation and spew Russian-directed hatred across the press.

Personally I think that falling prey to energy monopolies like the Russian one is a dangerous thing. We should diversify more - not just with more oil and gas pipelines from the Middle East and North Africa, but with nuclear technology that's not Russian made and won't put us back into total servitude of Big Ivan.

I'm thinking the Japanese technologies are perfect. Look at Fukishima - so far the reactors have withstood a 9-Richter earthquake as well as numerous aftershocks which would've knocked most of our cities down.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

I gotta agree.

Nuclear is inevitable, protest against it all you like you'll just be tilting at the windmills you probably favor the fact is that there are only 2 realistic options for generating the kind of energy that Hummanity will need for the next few hundred years, Nuclear and Space based Solar Power.

Sure both will be supplemented with terrestrial Solar and Wind power, maybe even some Wave and Ocean Geothermal but all of those other sources combined are never going to make up more than 30 - 40% of our energy needs leaving Nuclear and Space Based Solar to take up the slack.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I think most sensible and knowledgeable people don't want to kill nuclear power, they just want to have better laws around security and get more money into making it a lot safer and updating the science around it constantly. And,, of course also to not rely entirely or too heavily on this kind of energy source for all future.

As for Japan...well, the striking amount of fear mongering and misinformation in US media on the crisis around the power plants is...well striking. This tragedy is big enough as it is, without that kind of extra added drama. Japan is very on top o their game and knowledgeable when it comes to this technology, and yet things happen. Think what could happen to power plants around the US west coast, which are not as safe. This is a good wake up call to just really improve security in other places. A lot.

I also get really tired when I see people from other counties, filled with natural resources, complain about a country devoid of such natural resources, using nuclear power. The high horse of arrogance is high, but everybody wants their stove, warm water and computer to work.

ETA: Here is a good link on what's really going on in Japan in regards to the power plants: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftheenergycollective.com%2Fbarrybrook%2F53461%2Ffukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation&h=11a95

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

To my knowledge, the Nuclear industry in the US is already one of the most regulated there is. The containment vessels are already deliberately overdesigned. My father is one of the engineers who has built his career on complience. I have a bit of an in-line source on the procedures, you might say.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

My major concern is that Yucca Mountain is still empty.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

If we allowed breeder reactors today it might already have been filled.

Then again, you can explain how much safer one type of waste is over another, and yet people will respond the same.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I just don't understand the level of ignorance these people have.

If you live in the New England region, or possibly even extending to Ohio or Chicago, chances are 20% of your power comes from nuclear power plants.

Not new ones. Old ones. The kinds that were built before Three Mile Island. Using old architecture, they have been constantly modified to suit safety and technological progress.

If we built new power plants we would literally be SAFER than if we don't. Imagine if we could replace the power from these old plants and instead use the newer plants? I mean, I'm not even talking about the whole 'dependence on oil' shtick, but the idea that the debate is to go from 'no nuclear power' to 'nuclear power' is a fallacy. We're ALREADY using nuclear power plants. It literally boggles the mind that building new plants is a political issue.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

My father has 30 years of experience in the industry and as an engineer bringing plants into complience as regs have changed. Yeah, I know from him a little bit more than the average joe about how well these things are maintained here.

But the average joe just responds to fear.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

First, its a fallacy that it *has* to be part of the picture. It doesn't. There are a variety of options that we can use, and have used. We had power before nuclear power existed, proof that it doesn't have to be part of the picture. Now I know that we need much more power than we used to, and we're developing many new ways too.

Second, if anything, we should be viewing this as the safeness of nuclear power. I mean look at the level of catastrophe and so far, so little harm because of it. And this is the whole of the danger from nuclear power too, at other times they're infinitely cleaner than so many of the other options.

We complain about how this could possibly cause long-term health effects from this disaster, but what about all the long-term health effects already being caused by things like coal and oil pollution?


My overall opinion is Nuclear is much better than what we have, but I'd really rather overall we find better solar/wind/tidal solutions.

The thing is, we're a bunch of fucking slackers, and we go with the easiest solution. I know that if we don't use nuclear, we'd just go back to dirty solutions, not put the time and resources in to long-term solutions. We are long-term retarded.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

40 year old nuclear plant survives 8.9 magnitude earthquake and 7.0 magnitude aftershocks, but releases small amount of radioactive material a day after being run over by a 25 foot tsunami.

In other news: Dog bites man.

Considering their history, the Japanese are no strangers to radioactive contamination. I'm sure any contamination will be cleaned up along with the other cleanup efforts.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. Jane Fonda was in a move 32 years ago, so all arguments in favor of nuclear power are ipso facto invalid.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The reactor took a 9.0 earthquake, a tsunami, and a serious explosion of hydrogen gas, and the core did not leak. This is proof that nuclear power is safe, not the opposite.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, see, it's evidence that it's not safe because a couple hundred people may have been exposed.

That's the argument. I want to hit people repeatedly over the head with a spent rod,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

We could just give poor people jobs pedaling bikes.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I always wondered why fitness centers didn't wire up their equipment and sell electricity to the power company. People go there and pay them to perform work (physics speaking), that work could be sold. Bikes, weight machines, all of them are resistance machines, you could easily hook them up.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

During the time I lived in Japan I picked up that the nuke plants were very poorly managed and had long records of safety issues being covered up. Hopefully that all comes out in the wash but I'm sure the bigshots are already covering their asses.

I'd be more concered about the state of nuke planets elsewhere. If the New Madrid Faultline goes the Cook Co. plant and thus Chicago could be in real trouble.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

This is one issue that doesn't often come up and I wonder what people think: When people promote nuclear power being super safe, they assume that people are following all the regulations to a T and being very idealistic in their management and construction/maintenance. However, we have seen in any industry that is common, you'll always have a certain percentage of derpy drooling moron managers and workers. You'll have companies that emphasize cheapness over safety, even if it means flat out lying to inspectors, etc. This part doesn't seem to get covered so much.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Give me a nuclear power plant over fossil fuels any day. This tragedy doesn't change a thing for me in that regard. Even the radiation spewed by the meltdown of three reactors is infinitesimal compared to the vast quantities of pollution (and resulting environmental damage, and health issues) vomited forth by coal-fired plants.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

In addition, what would happen to the water if a coal plant was flooded?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You cannot make or operate a nuclear plant without making lots of carbon.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

We need a good metric to compare the risk of different power technologies.

I propose Deaths per per Kilowatt hour, DkWh.

Now, who wants to do the figuring? All the coal miners killed in mining and transportation accidents will make Nuclear compare very well, I think.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Radiation is a tricky thing. How many thyroid cancers are due to the radiation of the earth versus the power plant? Hard to measure accurately. How many childhood leukemia deaths are attributable? These things are difficult to determine. To brush them aside is criminal. All you have to do is spend some time working in a childhood leukemia clinic to realize that you don't want to make it worse.

Then there is the fact that it takes eons for the radiation to no longer be toxic.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

risk is inherent in every form of energy production.

How long does the damage take to repair itself in a nuclear accident?

All risk is not equal.

I would invest in making solar and tidal more efficient. 1000X improvement is actually feasible.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"1000X improvement is actually feasible."

Like all forms of energy, it has to prove itself against its competition first, then it can be called feasible.

"All risk is not equal."

In a sense, you're right, but its also relative. How much you're prepared to give up when compared to how much you get in return. How you go about estimating that risk is not the absolute, hands-down, be-all-and-end-all of how everyone is or should estimate risk.

My solution? Throw all modes of energy production into the proverbial arena and see who makes it out alive. No subsidies or handouts.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I question that people are being anti-nuke.

Looking at talk_politics, all I see is pro-nuke. Haven't seen many anti-nuke.

Have you?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Policy is typically made from impressions and fears of impressions, not actual perceptions of actual people.

And I have no idea how representative we are of the population as a whole.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Oh shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

Japan: New radiation leaks harmful to health

SOMA, Japan – Radiation is spewing from damaged reactors at a crippled nuclear power plant in tsunami-ravaged northeastern Japan in a dramatic escalation of the 4-day-old catastrophe. The prime minister has warned residents to stay inside or risk getting radiation sickness.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Tuesday that a fourth reactor at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex was on fire and that more radiation was released
Prime Minister Naoto Kan warned that there are dangers of more leaks and told people living within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex stay indoors.


I wonder if it is still category 4?

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Some heads are gonna roll when the dust settles on this.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Quaking in our boots (http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Quaking+boots/4440373/story.html?cid=megadrop_story) is the story here. The proposed new nuclear plant in Peace River will no doubt be stalled yet again, this time because of a tradgedy way aways over in Japan.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

More nuclear power plants, more oil refineries, more drilling for oil, less regulations on individual wind and solar energy, more research into using hydrogen for energy.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Hydrogen isn't for generating energy, it's a store of energy. We'd still need things like wind and coal and all that to generate the energy.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The problem is that while the risk is very low, the "payoff" of that risk is massive. A meltdown would mean all sorts of bad things for a large area, for decades.

I disagree that nuclear is a necessary part of anything. I can see how someone would argue that increased power generation is necessary, and fossil fuels are finite, but even then there are other methods. In the short term, stricter building standards to increase efficiency would do more than anything else to ensure that we have plenty of electricity. Power plants that go offline can be gradually replaced with renewable energy.

And I don't know why oil/gas companies don't use their expertise to drill for geothermal power. Weirdos.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Let me clarify. The economics of energy production will regionally favor one method over another, so unless the government is going to deliberately forbid some forms of energy production while allowing favored ones (or if it tries to 'engineer' a similar result via economic parlor tricks), a diverse array of sources is likely going to be seen, including nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, coal, and oil. And there are huge benefits for not restricting the variety of sources, or discouraging some while championing others.