Fukushima-How bad is it?

Fukushima...how bad is it?

  • Its wormwood, we're all gonna die.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Serious stuff, millions, perhaps billions will get cancer because of it..

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • Bad, its in the food supply, many are getting dosed with radiation

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • I'm concerned, but don't think its too bad.

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Its not bad,

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • We're better off now that there's radiation, I want my next kid to have a 3rd eye.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Total voters
    18
The problem with this is that we can get all those benefits, without the risk, with lower costs, and without the end game costs of nuclear, with renewables. So there's no case to be made for nuclear.

There are also more technologies available around the word 'nuclear' than just a few. Because of that, there are many places where nuclear can compete. We also have to consider political palatability. We need these solutions implemented vastly faster than we are. And thus we should acknowledge that there are places that will subsidize nuclear much more easily than they will subsidize other renewables
 
So not hundreds of years? That would be disappointing if I'd made a trip to get one just to have it burn out in less than 3 decades. I had dreams of the kids kids merrily using it to make toast, if I had one. .
 
Atomic_Powered_Toaster_by_meandmunch.jpg
 
Whoa! You got one!
 
I'd be careful with that. Doesn't appear to be any shielding on the ends.
 
yellow plastic works.
 
The thing about energy is that it is the foundation of industrial society. The underlying reason that we have the wealth we have is that we harness far more energy than was ever available to any previous civilization. We are also continuously coming up with ways to do more with a given amount of it - i.e. increasing efficiency - but it's still the foundation of everything we do.

Literally every country subsidizes all forms of energy in some way or another. In the case of fossil fuels, in addition to explicit subsidies (of which there are many), there are also subsidies that take place through time: the full price for the fossil fuels we burn today is paid by future generations that have to deal with the global warming and ocean acidification that are caused by the energy we consume today. Exactly how much global warming will happen is still very uncertain, but the price is there and will be paid over a period of thousands of years for energy that is consumed over 1/100 the amount of time. Even if that weren't a problem, they're still finite and would run out eventually, even though last decade's predictions for an imminent peak in oil and gas production were foiled by better extraction technology.

In the case of nuclear power, of course there are still subsidies, both the explicit kind and the implicit time-delayed kind. The latter consists of uncertainties about future meltdowns and about storage of radioactive waste. Storage in deep geological repositories like Yucca Mountain should work on timescales we care about, but there could be accidents getting it to those sites. Nonetheless, more advanced breeder reactor designs, with abundant fuels including U-238 --> Pu-239 and Th-232 --> U-233, and with designs pioneered in the Integral Fast Reactor along with other approaches such as molten salt reactors (mostly thorium breeders), hold some substantial promise. Unfortunately, budgets for this sort of research were slashed around the end of the Cold War, and regulations on nuclear power have been increased so dramatically thanks to the anti-nuclear movement that nuclear became completely uneconomic despite generous subsidies. Construction fell to 0 by the mid-1990s, and has remained there besides a couple of reactors somewhere in Georgia and/or South Carolina. Had we built out nukes to the extent France did (subsidies included), and especially if we had kept up research on better and safer designs, we would certainly be emitting far less carbon today.

For renewables, of course they are great and both need and deserve to be subsidized. One way or another, and I'm hoping for one of the more pain-free ways, we will end up llving sustainably, by definition - the unsustainable is that which cannot be sustained, on some timescale (in this case we're looking at decades to centuries). Solar power in particular holds enormous promise because of the improving economics of solar cell manufacturing and the vast amount of energy that is hitting the earth to be tapped. The big stumbling block is energy storage from intermittent sources, and progress here has been slower and more disappointing than in solar cell manufacture. It's one thing to get Li-ion batteries that can power phones and computers and luxury cars, and an entirely different one to build out enough batteries and pumped hydro storage to compensate for a cloudy, low-wind period in the winter. If we could build a much better transmission grid, we might be able to use the country's vast size to get power from e.g. the SW to the NE, but this would be an enormous undertaking and we suck at building advanced infrastructure in reasonable time frames at reasonable prices.

I'm am optimistic that we'll somehow muddle through and work it all out eventually, and end up powered by mostly renewables plus a few nukes and a little bit of gas (ideally biogas or syngas, realistically probably still fossil gas) for peaking power by 2100. But it's going to be a slow and drawn-out process, and we'll nearly certainly end up blowing CO2 levels way above 500 ppm, likely about 600 ppm, by that time, with all the attendant climate mayhem.
 
I am optimistic that we finally will manage to tame fussion. Lately i find an increasing lack of faith on this topic. I think we cant afford being pessimistic about fussion since that would stop funding research. That may be the biggest mistake ever in the long term.
 
It may turn out well - I'm not optimistic, but it's still very much worth investigating. The tokamak design seems to be a dead end, but there are smaller scale designs like the Polywell that deserve to be investigated fully.
 
As an engineer I like big sexy projects but we still do not know the whole life cost of nuclear.

Nuclear is not the answer to climate change, we need a set of solutions that will work everywhere.
Surely as an engineer you understand that seldom will there be something best in all cases, there are lots of things with different advantages and disadvantages.
 
Keep in mind, we need to be rolling out solutions fairly fast. The enemic conservation performed by liberals is vastly insufficient. And the policies trying to keep the majority of the world impoverishedare only holding the tide back so much.

Bill Gates is pretty positive on the ability of nuclear to be scaled usefully. Obviously, he's competing with other major philanthropists who actually do something, but time will have to tell.
 
Bill Gates has a history of trying to mess with public policy on areas completely outside his expertise to stroke his ego and his wealth. Funny how people can see this on some billionaires but completely miss it on others.
 
Alternatively, you don't know as much about the topic as he does, really.

My last interaction with you on this topic had you being a denier, so I'll just compare the sources on this one.
 
Keep in mind, we need to be rolling out solutions fairly fast. The enemic conservation performed by liberals is vastly insufficient. And the policies trying to keep the majority of the world impoverishedare only holding the tide back so much.

They have to get conservatives on board, the groups tend to be better at different things. Texas under Rick Perry taxed its own citizens to build the grid out to where private property holders could contract to put up windmills and actually have someplace for the juice to flow. I get the feeling that a Texas style wind bonanza would run into progressively more problems the more progressively regulated the area in question is.
 
They have to get conservatives on board, the groups tend to be better at different things. Texas under Rick Perry taxed its own citizens to build the grid out to where private property holders could contract to put up windmills and actually have someplace for the juice to flow. I get the feeling that a Texas style wind bonanza would run into progressively more problems the more progressively regulated the area in question is.

I suspect you are wrong on that, since California (most progressively regulated state in the union) has a very similar setup for solar. I have to guess that if someone wanted to put up a wind turbine the regulations for solar would pretty directly apply.
 
California doesn't look nearly as impressive if you omit hydroelectric renewables. Does it? Granted, maybe it lacks the wind Texas possesses or the places to build them? Is that a thing? Texas does appear to be lagging behind CA on solar. Is solar sexier? Uses up a greater percentage of occupied land, from what I've seen, but has a somewhat friendlier skyline from a distance. The turbines go vroom vroom vroom and blink blink blink, and frankly, it is annoying. But the cell towers did that in the first place, and frankly I think renewable energy is more laudable than pocket computers.
 
California doesn't look nearly as impressive if you omit hydroelectric renewables. Does it? Granted, maybe it lacks the wind Texas possesses or the places to build them? Is that a thing? Texas does appear to be lagging behind CA on solar. Is solar sexier? Uses up a greater percentage of occupied land, from what I've seen, but has a somewhat friendlier skyline from a distance. The turbines go vroom vroom vroom and blink blink blink, and frankly, it is annoying. But the cell towers did that in the first place, and frankly I think renewable energy is more laudable than pocket computers.

Solar, from a private citizen perspective, is just easier than wind. Pave your roof with solar panels, sell the excess power you generate, which you generate during peak intervals when it is really needed anyway, buy what you need at night and you come out ahead. With zero maintenance. California is pushing more towards meeting power needs without devoting land specifically to power generation by having everyone participate, rather than promoting "wind farms" or "solar farms." We have some of those, but I think the other option is superior.

In any event, progressive regulation in itself doesn't seem like a deterrent.
 
Well, I guess that's nice for homeowners, like wind turbines are nice for providers and people who don't have a lot of space to coat in panels, industrial uses, etc. I have my doubts regarding "zero maintenance" solar panels being widely viable though. Tree branches, wind storms, hail, all things I'm pretty sure I'm going to guess can do a number on a solar panel, right? Bear in mind on that California dream of everyone generates "their own without a farm" still probably includes the enormous dams, right?

Regulation does deter energy system upgrades. Not always a bad thing mind you, but it does. Regulation held up windmills in my area for a couple years. Regulation holds up pipelines replacing rail cars and trucks. But sure, sometimes it doesn't.
 
Tree branches that fall on your roof are a problem with or without solar panels. I consider that a rare enough event to just not count it. At the very least the "routine maintenance" of keeping potential deadfalls landing on your house doesn't change either way.

Wind storms aren't an issue unless they turn into sandstorms and last long enough to scour away the transparency of the surface. Again, that can happen but will damage a whole lot of other things anyway, and is such a rare event as to be mostly dismissed.

Last but not least; hail? Seriously? I remember once waaaaaay back in grade school we had hail that was maybe the size of BBs, and our teacher let us go out to see it because it was such an oddity. Suffice to say we generally don't consider hail related problems in routine maintenance.

On the other hand, a wind turbine has a whole gang of moving parts. That means lubricants to check on, wearing surfaces leading to regularly replacing parts; it's an entirely different level of maintenance.

On the hydroelectric thing...this is California. We dam up water because we need the water. We also need to keep the water from killing us. Using it for power is a nice bonus, but really we would be damming everything up anyway.
 
Well, I guess that's nice for homeowners, like wind turbines are nice for providers and people who don't have a lot of space to coat in panels, industrial uses, etc. I have my doubts regarding "zero maintenance" solar panels being widely viable though. Tree branches, wind storms, hail, all things I'm pretty sure I'm going to guess can do a number on a solar panel, right? Bear in mind on that California dream of everyone generates "their own without a farm" still probably includes the enormous dams, right?

Regulation does deter energy system upgrades. Not always a bad thing mind you, but it does. Regulation held up windmills in my area for a couple years. Regulation holds up pipelines replacing rail cars and trucks. But sure, sometimes it doesn't.

Living in Oregon I can tell you that most Californians, not all certainly, will buy a treed lot in Oregon, tell you how beautiful it is, then cut every tree. Next comes the Cali style modern desert mansion, then winter and rain, then the for sale sign of Spring. Anyway, no problem with branches falling on the roof.
 
Back
Top Bottom