Renewable energy wrecks environment

[Art Eatman]

What's not included in the world-cost of a Prius is the pollution around the nickel mine in Canada, and the pollution in China where the nickel is processed.  Plus, there is the energy cost of mining, transporting, processing, transporting and the the final manufacturing of the batteries.

A Prius gets some 50mpg highway?  What's the big deal?  So do several other cars of less weight and equal interior volume.  Heck, the original VW diesel Rabbit could get 60mpg...

The only possibility of a Chernobyl-type excursion here in the US is the Hanford plant.  It's the only similar design.  Hanford operates at most at 40% of rating; Chernobyl was operating at 120% of rating when it blew.

The radiation release at Three Mile Island, mostly in the form of Radon, was (in terms of millirems) about the same as spending a summer in Aspen, Colorado--getting more cosmic rays at elevation 7,400 than TMI's 300 feet above sea level.

I read an article on risk analysis in 1985 which claimed that deaths due to coal smoke pollution in the area between Richmond, VA, and Boston, MA ran some 4,000 per year above the normal rate if no coal smoke were present.  So that's 88,000 dead in just 22 years.  Seems like a lot less than from nukes...

As said above, the worthwhile hydro projects have been done.  And, given what happens when you get into the EIS phase of damming a river, plus the lawsuits, no river authority is interested...

Art

[K Frame]

"The radiation release at Three Mile Island, mostly in the form of Radon, was (in terms of millirems) about the same as spending a summer in Aspen, Colorado--getting more cosmic rays at elevation 7,400 than TMI's 300 feet above sea level.

I read an article on risk analysis in 1985 which claimed that deaths due to coal smoke pollution in the area between Richmond, VA, and Boston, MA ran some 4,000 per year above the normal rate if no coal smoke were present.  So that's 88,000 dead in just 22 years.  Seems like a lot less than from nukes..."

Did you actually read my message?

I don't care if a nuke plant turns 1 billion people into upright rotting corpses.

I do care if that nuke plant makes several thousand square miles of land uninhabitable, especially if it's land that I care about.

[MechAg94]

It seems I heard that the land around Chernobyl is heavily occupied, just not by humans.  I guess the long term effects are still not known.

I was under the impression there were differences in the way Chernobyl was designed compared to similar plants in the US and was largely responsible for the severity of that disaster.

Wasn't coal burning in relatively dirty power plants causing all that acid rain that screwed up some wilderness areas?  It has been a while since I heard much about it.  It was a real big issue in the 80's.

[roo_ster]

Acid Rain was displaced by Global Warming by the enviro-zealots.

[Iain]

Art - could be wrong, but I thought part of the pro-Prius argument wasn't about the total mpg, but was about localised pollution. Running on an electric motor in urban areas reduces pollution in that area. Diesels are great for total mpg, but until recently less good on particulate emissions.

There's plenty of reaction to this article on the internet, including a long argument about whether his solar panel maths is correct.

[DustinD]

I remember them saying the Titanic was unsinkable, Well, I don't ACTUALLY remember them saying it but I've HEARD that they said it.

The engineers did not say it was unsinkable, a reporter did. A while after it sank it was widely reported that way because everbody loves the whole "experts/engineers/scientists have been wrong before" type story. I doubt anyone cared whether it was unsinkable or gave the risk any thought until it actually sank. They only thought of how big, fast, and luxurious it was.

[Perd Hapley]

Screech?   

[Iain]

There's something Malthusian about these calculations too.

See for instance - http://www.gizmag.com/go/7705/

I suppose nothing will improve if we all just snipe.

[Firethorn]

I do care if that nuke plant makes several thousand square miles of land uninhabitable, especially if it's land that I care about.

First, the odds of a Chernobyl style disaster happening in the USA is pretty much zilch.  That includes having to evacuate the area for an extended period of time.  There are actually people living there today that never left, or only left for a short period of time.  Their population is declining because nobodys moving in and there are no young people having families, but so far has had a similar death rate for their age groups as nearby cities.

It seems I heard that the land around Chernobyl is heavily occupied, just not by humans.  I guess the long term effects are still not known.

There were a couple of studies that found bird survival rates were not quite as good, while small mammals are surviving quite well.  Larger mammals also seem to love the area as there were numerous sightings, but the scientists didnt have permission to mess with them.

Of course, part of the bird study found them nesting in the sarcophagus, which is among the most heavily contaminated areas left, so I think that that might explain the birds reduced hatchling survival rate.

I was under the impression there were differences in the way Chernobyl was designed compared to similar plants in the US and was largely responsible for the severity of that disaster.

Chernobyl would have never been approved in the USA.  For one, it didnt have a pressure container, which is a requirement for US reactors.  Think of it as a pre-installed sarcophagus.  If reactor number 4 had a dome, they would have ended up with a contaminated dome, but little to no release of radioactivity into the surrounding area.  At that point you lock the dome up or decontaminate it pretty much at your leisure.

It also had a 'positive void coefficient', a rather high one at that.  What that means is that when a void forms from boiling coolant, the reaction in the surrounding area increases.  This can lead to more boiling, more reaction, IE runaway situation.  Plants in the USA are required to have a negative coefficient.

As for the hanford plant - it was a plutonium production plant, and has been shut down for quite some time, at least per wikipedia.

Wasn't coal burning in relatively dirty power plants causing all that acid rain that screwed up some wilderness areas?  It has been a while since I heard much about it.  It was a real big issue in the 80's.

Tightened emission requirements have cleaned up coal power substantially, but its still an issue.  At the same time its substantially raised the cost of coal power, to the point that the dropping costs of nuclear power has made it cheaper.

As for the titantic, while they made a number of 'new' improvements to reduce the chances of it sinking, the iceberg hit was pretty severe.  They consequently modified the designs of the sister ships, raising the height of the waterproof 'cell' walls, which worked fairly well in reducing the rate of sinking when one of the ships ended up going down after being hit with a mine.

[Art Eatman]

Iain, reducing pollution in one place while increasing it elsewhere is a world-wide problem, isn't it?  Isn't that what's happened with smokestack industries leaving the US and going to countries with little or no enforcement of any pollution control laws--if they exist at all?

So a Prius might benefit the people of LA, but screw up a bunch of people elsewhere.  The common term for that is "hypocrisy".

As for US reactors, as noted above, the basic designs and regulatory mandates pretty much insure that "The China Syndrome" will never be a documentary.  TMI endured three major human errors and twenty-two minor errors yet there was no notable excursion.  That was some 30+ years ago.  I think it naive to believe that reactor control concepts and technology have remained stagnant.  They've certainly kept pace with the computerization of automobiles.

Side effects of wind generators:  A helluva lot of wire, whether copper or ACSR to collect the electricity to a central point to put it onto hundreds of miles of transmission lines to a use point.  There are the cost aspects at a time of rising commodity prices as well as the environmental impacts of the mining and smelting.  Transmission (""wheeling") costs from the buss bar of a conventional power plant add some 20% to the FOB cost of the plant's electric output.  I suspect it would be a good bit higher because of  wind unit gathering--but this cost is rarely discussed in public.

Little ironies:  If you want to build a nuke plant, ya gotta do an EIS.  Now, after some 116 nuke plants (maybe more) in the US, you'd think that an EIS could be done with the typing of "We're gonna change the land use of some 160 acres."  'Scuse me, but what's gonna be different at a new plant that we don't already know?  Duh?  But, no, millions of dollars to hire a bunch of bug'n'bunny folks and a couple of archaelogists to run around for a couple of years.  Then the inevitable lawsuits from the NRDC, et al, picking flypoop out of pepper.

But who's worried about dead birds--raptors included--with wind units?  Dunno how many of y'all are aware that many TV stations have a morning chore of removing bird carcasses from the base of the towers?  And how many birds die from flying into all manner of communication towers (including, now, all these cell-phone towers) and into electric lines?  (Transmission lines are rough on geese, down on the Texas coast.) 

Then there's the aesthetic aspect of wind units:  IMO, they uglify tens of thousands of acres.  A nuke plant occupies how many?

Just stray thoughts...

Art

[K Frame]

"First, the odds of a Chernobyl style disaster happening in the USA is pretty much zilch."

The arrogance and shortsightedness of a statemnt like that are the exact reason why I'm not in favor of nuclear power at all.

IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE! (confident, smug, self-satisfied grin)...

We're right back to my comment below that apparently as of January 1, 1980, we achived immutable perfection in the design and operation of nuclear power plants. Nothing can ever go wrong. No accident can ever sully the perfection that we have achieved. Anyone who believes otherwise is a threat to enlightened, benevolent society.

Bullshit.

Absolutely, 100% bullshit.

History is littered with the wreckage of "perfect" systems.

And obviously a "Chernobyl-style disaster" can't happen here, becuase there are no Chernobyl-design reactors in operation anywhere in the United States. That leaves open avenues for completely different disaster types.

[MechAg94]

Mike, I think you are arguing against a position that doesn't appear here.  No one said it is impossible.  Just about anything is possible.  However, after you put about 20 safeguards in place to prevent it from happening, the probability becomes negligible.  There are tons of chemical plants operating along the gulf coast down here that have all sorts of nasty chemicals (like phosgene).  They do have problems, but the doomsday type scenario you seem to fear is extremely rare.  And their safeguards/process are not up to the degree required of nuke plants.  The primary places I know of that have had problems are union plants like Phillips that seem to have union/management issues. 


On another tack:  Why don't the police take your guns away because it is possible that you will go on a shooting spree.  The odds of that are very low you say?  Why that doesn't matter.  It is still possible.  How arrogant can you be.  We must protect the children. 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't matter.
Mike Irwin is AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.  That's all anyone needs to know.  The facts don't matter here.  Don't try arguing facts or statistics.  It wont help because HE IS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.
Just like some people are against guns.  Sure, more people are killed by cars than by guns.  Sure the likelihood of a gun going off by itself is nil.  But it doesn't matter because THEY ARE AGAINST GUNS.
Just like Mike Irwin is AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.
Might as well close the thread already.

[MechAg94]

Did this just become a flame thread. 

[DustinD]

That leaves open avenues for completely different disaster types.

This would be a lot better discussion if people would go through those types instead of just saying "it could happen."

History is littered with the wreckage of "perfect" systems.

How often do credible sources say a system is perfect, and then it goes on to fail? I doubt it is too often despite that particular plot element existing in many hollywood movies. Edit: As an example sales people and spokes persons are not credible, peer reviewed groups of experts that have been checked by the field as a whole are.

Also to improve the quality on this forum a bit why don't you calm down. You have gone after others for being far less off the wall and emotional than you are now. Note this thread as an example, posts 13-16.

Also you may want to read this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

[Firethorn]

Ouch, here I have a whole rant typed up, and somebody else mentioned all my points.  Good job DustinD and MechAg94.

Quick restatement:
1. Strawman argument.  I haven't characterized, to my knowledge, that nuclear power is perfect.
2. Multiple layers of safeguards exist, such as containment structures, negative void coefficients, and physical safety systems to SCRAM a reactor without intervention or electronics if the pressure/temperature gets too high.  Their operation has been verified through the safe operation of hundreds of reactors for decades.
3. Please name a possible accident involving a nuclear reactor that's not 'Chernobyl like' that still involves the contamination of hundreds of square miles?  Personally, my definition of 'Chernobyl like' would be any accident that spreads a good portion of radioactive reactor material across a fair bit of landscape.  US reactors have that great big concrete dome/building to prevent just that.  Tests have shown them to laugh at plane strikes.
4. A non-breach meltdown is still nasty, and pretty much guarantees the permanent shutdown of that reactor, possibly the whole plant...  That's what the containment dome is for, and I personally don't really care about losing the plant as long as the landscape and people around it are fine.  Bonus if no plant workers are harmed.

[Art Eatman]

Mike, maybe it's "Chernobyl style" that's the problem.  As I said much earlier, the only US reactor of that design is the Hanford reactor.  It's now shut down.

From a safety standpoint, the design could be likened to running mechanical brakes on an Indy car.  Even so, it's safe at some operating load.  Chernobyl, to repeat, was operating at 120%.  That's Doom, just waiting.

Can there be some minor, short-term radiation problem with modern designs?  Yes.  Can there be a Chernobyl-type disaster?  For all practical purposes, no.  That is, it might be somehow possible, but nobody knows how it could happen.  When a "pile" overheats, it melts; it does not repeat Hiroshima.  Had Chernobyl had a containment building around the reactor system, the chemical explosion could not have blasted radioactive material across the countryside.

Chernobyl was the prototypical "dirty bomb" that is commonly talked about as a terrorist's weapon.  It was not a nuclear explosion.

Yeah, I'm somewhat repeating some of Firethorn's stuff--and I'm reinforcing his views.

I'm not gonna apologize for a semester of nuclear physics, two semesters of nuclear power reactor design, and some decades in civil engineering messing around with steel and concrete.  Sometimes I wish I had no technical education, so it could be so much easier to run around emoting at length about things of which I know nothing.

Hey, Firethorn, even the little 10-watt-thermal reactor at Gatorland had a Scram button.

Art

[Ben]

I'm a nuclear power proponent, so posting this link may seem counter to that, but I have always found this woman's photo essays of the post Chernobyl landscape fascinating:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

[K Frame]

You've said that a "Chernobyl-type accident" isn't possible here.

I can only assume that that means an uncontrolled reaction with core breach and atmospheric exposure.

If you claim that that's not possible, it goes to follow that nuclear power has achieved perfection. Or at least the American iteration of it has.

Nuclear power's greatest failing isn't the technology; it's the atom chimps who control the technology. As long as the technology depends on the atom chimps, it will be a disaster waiting to happen.

[Firethorn]

From a safety standpoint, the design could be likened to running mechanical brakes on an Indy car.  Even so, it's safe at some operating load.  Chernobyl, to repeat, was operating at 120%.  That's Doom, just waiting.

I did a report on Chernobyl when I was in HS.  They were not only running at 120%, they also disabled a number of safety systems for a test, then their backup generators wouldnt start up, they failed to initiate a SCRAM when they were supposed to for political reasons.  Oh yeah, and a little quirk where when control rods were inserted the reaction would go up before it went down.  The list goes on.  Hanford was probably a safer design.

Can there be some minor, short-term radiation problem with modern designs?  Yes.  Can there be a Chernobyl-type disaster?  For all practical purposes, no.  That is, it might be somehow possible, but nobody knows how it could happen.  When a "pile" overheats, it melts; it does not repeat Hiroshima.  Had Chernobyl had a containment building around the reactor system, the chemical explosion could not have blasted radioactive material across the countryside.

Bingo, worst case scenario (explosive reactor core breach), short circuited by a pre-built massive concrete and steel containment building.  You might end up burying the dome for a couple hundred years before cleaning it up, but unlike many chemical contaminants, radioactive materials get less dangerous over time.

Chernobyl was the prototypical "dirty bomb" that is commonly talked about as a terrorist's weapon.  It was not a nuclear explosion.

True, the explosion was a steam/pressure release, explosive decompression once the reactor container was breached.  Much of the core is still intact down in a sub-basement.  They have some pictures of it, very grainy.  The radiation is so intense down there they had to use special film.

Hey, Firethorn, even the little 10-watt-thermal reactor at Gatorland had a Scram button.

Is it big and red?  Its not a proper SCRAM button if its not big and red.  Oh yeah, and a protective clear plastic cover.

Though I was thinking about the fuse type emergency SCRAM system where when the temperature reaches a certain point the linkages holding the control rods melt, dropping them all into the reactor, stopping the reaction.  Of course, at that point the plants going to be down for a year, but it didnt melt down!

You've said that a "Chernobyl-type accident" isn't possible here.

Youre misrepresenting us again.  For all practical purposes, no, pretty much zilch doesnt say that it isnt possible, just that the odds are vanishingly remote.  IE extremely low.  Thats not to say that it couldnt happen, just that extremely unusual events would have to happen  such as an asteroid strike.

I can only assume that that means an uncontrolled reaction with core breach and atmospheric exposure.

Id remove the uncontrolled reaction, though thats generally part of it.

If you claim that that's not possible, it goes to follow that nuclear power has achieved perfection. Or at least the American iteration of it has.

Youre trying to knock down a strawman here again.  We dont say that its not possible, we dont say that accidents dont happen, that mistakes arent made.  What we do say is that nuclear power has achieved one of the safest power generation records in the world.  Per kWh, nuclear power does the least amount of environmental damage and kills the fewest people of any major electrical power generation system.  Its so low that deaths from falls from maintaining wind farms and accidents while maintaining solar panels might exceed those of the nuclear industry, even including Chernobyl.

Nuclear power's greatest failing isn't the technology; it's the atom chimps who control the technology. As long as the technology depends on the atom chimps, it will be a disaster waiting to happen.

When did the atom chimps get control?  I mean, weve had pretty much the same record for the last 30 years:  no deaths from radiation (weve lost a few due to steam accidents, which also happen in coal plants) and few injuries.  For chimps they seem to be doing pretty good.  Weve had more radiation caused deaths from malfunctioning medical devices.

[The Rabbi]

You've missed the point.
Mike Irwin is AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.  Unless you can give him an iron-clad guarantee that nothing whatsoever will ever happen to endanger the environment, he will be opposed to it.  It doesnt matter that he probably takes more risk getting up in the morning and making himself a cup of coffee than he would living next door to a nuke.
You can't guarantee that your gun won't be used against an innocent person either.  It's all the same thing.

[MechAg94]

If you claim that that's not possible, it goes to follow that nuclear power has achieved perfection. Or at least the American iteration of it has.

No one made that claim.  No one is saying "perfection" but you. 

What they are saying is that all possible failure scenarios have been reviewed and mapped out and processes/structures have been designed to prevent failure (failure defined as part of the study).  In engineering terms, that means the probability of failure is very low.  Impossible is not an engineering term and every engineer knows that nothing is perfect.  Imperfections are accounted for in design and construction. 

[Perd Hapley]

My Daddy and Mommy took us to a No Nukes rally when we were kids and they were recovering counter-culturists.  I think he's still against it, far-rightist though he is. 

[Mabs2]

I wish we would biuld more nuclear plants.

However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.

Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.

The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.

This is exactly my position.
If you don't want to have solar panels, fine.
I want them because it'll save me money and help out a small way...not much.  But mainly it's just the money. =p
I think people should get solar hot water and solar electric panels...because it'd save them lots of money.

I also agree with moar nukes.

[Tallpine]

I wish I could afford to convert our house to solar power, not for any cost savings but simply for freedom from the "grid."  Then so what if the power goes off, the sun is still up there

Right now our biggest vulnerability is that our water supply (well) depends on electric power.

What they are saying is that all possible failure scenarios have been reviewed and mapped out and processes/structures have been designed to prevent failure (failure defined as part of the study).  In engineering terms, that means the probability of failure is very low.  Impossible is not an engineering term and every engineer knows that nothing is perfect.  Imperfections are accounted for in design and construction. 

You are probably safer living next to a nukular plant than driving over a bridge