The environmental movement, and its irrational fear of nuclear energy

Great Debates
161

I’m not aware of anyone debating as if that was a reasonable scenario. I seem to be one of the few that even took exception to the statement and this is what I said about it:

“I probably shouldn’t have even responded to that question, I don’t think it helped the debate.”

“I believe I answered the question quite accurately, and I still believe the question (“what is the absolute worst case scenario”) and the answer doesn’t add anything to this debate.”

“But if you can’t, then it seems we are left with both worst case scenarios are bad and it’s very difficult to quantify them for comparisons. So I don’t think it’s helping the debate.”

I agree with the general approach to the question, which brings us back to the OP.

Given that you agree it’s suboptimal storage, and that it goes without saying a better and more long term storage solution must be found, isn’t it incorrect to characterize opposition as “irrational”?

162

No, if a solution has been found and still isn’t accepted.

163

A related question - how large are the potential supplies of the raw material to fuel reactors? Would it be a sustainable source for decades, or hundreds of years, if the majority of energy were to be supplied this way? What if Europe gets on board, and China, and India, and so on?

164

But to accurately use the word “irrational” you would need pretty strong evidence that the solution is complete, that there are no outstanding issues. Otherwise the use of the term “irrational” is simply not correct because it implies there are no risks, or that the risks are so negligible as to be not even worth considering when determing a course of action.

Either way, it’s been an interesting exchange, and I have certainly learned some about the current state of nuclear power and waste.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I think my interest level in this topic has decayed back to a level lower than it was when first mined from my mind. Therefore, I think I’m done.

165

RaftPeople, it is good to see we are on the same boat (raft?) again. I do not have any numbers, I wish I had. I have yet to set my heart on this issue (despite my pro-nuclear bias).

Let me take issue, though, with your suggestion to wait 5, 10, 15 years until we have a solution for waste. I believe we agree that Yucca Mountain (heck, even our current mess) is good enough for that period (things might start to break down in 100 or 400 years but they certainly can stand a 20-year period). What would be the objection to storing it there for that period while containment technology catches up? Once we have the technology, we build surplus capacity to work on the backlog and then that capacity sits waiting for the demand to increase.

I will grant you that global warming fear mongering is as real as the anti-nuclear but even by the most conservative estimates, the problem is mounting at an alarming rate. I couldn’t sit quietly for the next 10 years waiting for the pocket protector crowd to iron out the kinks of a technology that basically exists. Everything, from videogame development to space programs start assuming an improvement in technology during the development cycle.

Should we start building nuclear reactors left and right just because we can? no. But we should at least impose the same standards we expect on them on carbon plants and let the market push the process without burying nuclear energy in red tape.

166

Though it’s academic, I’d like to point out that this is not the definition or “irrational” I (and I expect others) have been using. The given definition is useful for forcing a false dichotomy and nothing else.

167

I guess I’m not done.

I tried to map the definition of “irrational”, which is: “not consistent with or using reason” into words related to the topic at hand.

The only way opposition could be “not consistent with or using reason” is if there were no risks remaining or they were so negligible as to be inconsequential.

Because there are risks, they must be considered when weighing which is the best short and long term path, therefore “irrational” is not the correct term.

“Irrational” is a well defined term, Sal Ammoniac admits to choosing it on purpose and stands by it, and I haven’t seen anything to indicate the term is correct.

I believe you (and others) have been arguing a different position, which I engaged in simultaneously and believe it or not, we are far closer to agreement than you may realize (especially after learning about the transport containers sturdiness and the vitrification procedure), but none of that changes my mind on the term “irrational.”

168

I’m losing steam on the topic but, as stated in the last paragraph to Bryan Ekers, I think we are pretty close in our opinions.

169

Bullshit.

Certainly there are risks with using nuclear and the corresponding waste management. What is irrational is to exaggerate these while ignoring the already significant risks of business as usual, i.e continued fossil-fuel burning. Part of the exaggeration is to base one’s opinion on a worst-case scenario which is incredibly remote while overstating even the already bad effects because the result conforms to one’s pre-existing fears.

In any case, if this is all just a definitional argument on what the word “irrational” means, no wonder nothing is being accomplished.

170

This is pretty easy really. There are pros and cons to using nuclear power, some of the cons involve safety. In addition there are pros and cons related to not using nuclear power, some of the cons also involve safety (of the planet and the inhabitants). Just because 2 parties disagree on where the line is that tips the scales one way or the other doesn’t mean either side is being irrational. In fact, by definition of the word, if “reason” was used (as in weighing the pros and cons on both sides) then it can’t be “irrational.”

What argument do you have that shows “irrational” is a good choice of words other than “bullshit”?

Who is using a worst case scenario as an argument against using nuclear power?

If you are not implying that I did that, then please ignore the next paragraph.

[Stuff To Completely Ignore If You Didn’t Imply I Did That]
If you are implying that I did that, then please go back and carefully re-read the posts regarding worst case scenario. Here is a recap:
SA argues that even a worst case scenario of dumping waste pales in comparison to co2 problem
I respond by saying I disagree, but that discussing it doesn’t help debate
Others say “SA was talking about an accident”
I correctly point out he wasn’t, but say it still is not worth discussing
SA clarifies that yes indeed he was not discussing an accident and is willing to retract the statement because it sems to be getting in the way
I agree that it’s getting in the way and we shouldn’t be discussing it

If, after carefully re-reading the posts regarding worst case scenario, you still think I did that, then I would recommend you have an unbiased 3rd party read the posts and explain to you what you are mis-interpreting. If that still doesn’t work, then I sincerely do not know what to tell you.

[/Stuff To Completely Ignore If You Didn’t Imply I Did That]

No it’s not an argument about what “irrational” means, there is already a very simple and clear definition.

You state nothing is being accomplished, yet this was in the post you responded to:

I don’t understand that approach to debating. I’ve just told you we are closer in opinion than you think and that I learned something and you respond by saying nothing is being accomplished???

171

Oh, I already knew where your stated opinions on nuclear power lay. It’s your defense of radical environmentalists (by disputing that “irrational” - regarding their opposition to the use of nuclear power - is a valid descriptor of their views) which is creating the schism.

Anyway, Sal was clearly talking about a waste disposal policy (and my description of “cracking open” a waste truck in Times Square was supposed to describe a deliberate rather than accidental act, though I accept that I was unclear) but it doesn’t really matter, since the counter arguments are typically:

[ul][li]Nuclear power is bad because the waste can’t be safely disposed of[/li][li]It doesn’t matter if a safe disposal method exists; nuclear power remains bad because corporations can’t be trusted to follow these safe methods[/li][li]It doesn’t matter if the corporations always follow the safe methods, because accidents can happen[/li][li]It doesn’t matter if the waste transport containers and Yucca Mountain can survive any conceivable accident, because there’s always the chance of terrorist attack[/li][/ul]

At any stage, attempts to make the system workable are ignored because, it is argued, there is a chance that some kind of scary doomsday scenario will sterilize entire regions. Sal’s point as I understand it is that even under the worst conditions (i.e. as early as the first point - the waste isn’t being safely disposed of), this outcome isn’t as dire as anti-nuke propaganda claims. There are indeed people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and around Chernobyl and no accident or terrorist attack involving spilled waste could be worse than what each of these regions was initially subjected to.

If you still don’t like the label “irrational” being applied to such views, well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

172

Agreed.

173

In the interest of flogging this horse on the off-chance that it might not be dead, I will say that we have concentrated a great deal on the bad side of nuclear energy – namely, nuclear waste – and not nearly enough on the good – the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in electricity generation to zero. If you’re going to regard the threat of global warming with any degree of seriousness, then the rational response is to look for things that will make a dent in it. And I contend that much of the environmental movement hasn’t, in a serious way.

Here’s an example: MassPIRG, on its web page about the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, recommends a “shift away from nuclear power by promoting clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.” And what do they set as a target for clean renewable energy? 20% of the portfolio by 2020. In other words, in 13 years, we’ll be making a modest reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions over the current level, providing overall demand doesn’t rise enough to negate the effect.

I think it’s a little late in the game to be offering up this form of incrementalism. The Kyoto protocol was signed nearly ten years ago, and in those ten years the world has made no overall gains against greenhouse gases. I think we need to think big here, and nuclear energy is at least a comprehensive solution – meaning one single plant design, and one nuclear waste solution, replicated as many times as needed. That would immediately cut three-quarters of our greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s not the only alternative, of course. but I want somebody to tell me how we can cut 75% of our emissions in ten years using solar, wind power, conservation, and any other magic tricks that may be up someone’s bag.

174

An isotope can be intensely radioactive. An isotope can be long-lived. The Law Of Conservation of Energy says “PICK ONE”.

175

[Bolding mine]

I’ve been thinking about this all week off and on, and in the end nuclear waste, and
the proposals put forth here and elsewhere to deal with it, seem to be tempting
Murphy’s Law in a very significant way. What if the junk somehow leaks into the
water table of a major city? The handwaving that says even if there is a spill the
effects will be local and minor remains unconvincing; I’ve seen the “incredibly remote”
justification used for a variety of different plans and products over the years in many
fields, often followed years later by exactly that kind of disaster which the proponents
pooh-poohed.

Being a naval buff, one example suffices: the Germans, when designing their
WWII battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, had to put in a little “bulge”
on the rear deck to accomodate the oversize boilers. Didn’t seem like much of
a problem-after all it presented a very small target, right? Well in 1943 in her
final battle an enemy round hit that location and disabled the boilers, and she
succumbed soon after.

I certainly am well aware of the negative effects of global warming, many of which
are clearly visible now. Are nukes the best solution for an alternative
energy source to help avoid the problems of global warming? Or are their own
attendant problems going to mean we go from the (cliche warning) frying pan
into the nuclear fire? I don’t like the idea of passing the buck to people who
will be born thousands of years in the future either.

176

The irony of course, is that the French actually hired American companies to handle all of it.

177

I’d like some examples, but let’s say okay, what if? Are you suggesting a disaster worse than, say, Chernobyl?

A reactor is not a warhsip, though. The reactor doesn’t have to be mobile (thus it’s fixed defenses can be a lot thicker) nor does it reasonably expect to come under fire from submarines and whatnot. Interestingly, the Iraqi Osirak reactor was destroyed by military attack, but I’m not aware of any long-term nuclear pollution issues.

Your rhetoric is unconvincing. The best solution (within or nearly within the grasp of current technology) would be controlled fusion. But since that may take decades before starting to become viable, beginning a transition to fission now will (hopefully) offset fossil fuel pollution as the demand for energy only increases.

Frankly, I like the plans put forth in various issues of Popular Science and Scientific American which propose “reactor farms” isolated from major cities, using superconducting cables to deliver electricity, coupled with hybrid and eventually all-electric and/or fuel cell cars. We can’t get there from here if we’re blocked by fear.

As for people born thousands of years from now, we have no idea if they’ll view us positively or negatively. I’m hoping they’ll be moderately grateful that we continued technological development rather than let ourselves be stalled and that we didn’t permanently scar the ecosystem with carbon pollution. I can easily imagine them finding the Yucca facility, thinking “Wow, this is interesting. Better break out the anti-grav hoverlifts and get this stuff to the matter converter because it looks like the perfect solution to our andranistanifaction problem. Well, unless those radical anti-andranos kick up another protest. They’re such a nuisance.”

178

If I had a nickel for every pie-in-the-sky idea I saw in Popular Science which later came to
nothing, I’d be rich indeed. The problem is you assume that some near/mid-term/far future
tech will come along and make fission power safe and render the problem of waste as umm no
longer being a problem. While I contend it is exactly that mindset which has lead us to the
brink of global warming in the first place-we kept passing the buck to future generations. Well
you can only do that for so long before the bill comes due-and woe to the generation who has
to pay it. Maybe the waste can be handled safely, won’t leak into water tables or whatnot.
But so far our political and corporate leadership has not shown the ability to manage
lesser tasks, much less something like a large-scale nuclear plant program.

But the history of humankind (yes my dark cynical side is showing itself) is rife
with people who did not properly plan for every realistic eventuality. But NOW we
can trust them to do the right things which something as potentially horrific as
nuclear waste? And if not we can depend on some future geniuses to save the
world from our folly? Sorry if I don’t join in your optimism-I just worry that some
leak of that sort could render large parts of the world uninhabitable. Is the chance
for something that horrible worth it to combat global warming now, when other
alternatives exist (and haven’t been tried yet). Nukes at best can probably help
a bit but I certainly would not put all my eggs into its basket.

You can go ahead and call all the above irrational fear-mongering but I believe
it alludes to some very real risks. Yes there’s enviros who are so wedded to
their views that they refuse to see any alternatives-but it is fallacious to assume
that anyone who raises objections to a large-scale nuke plant renaissance is
such a commentator.

Frankly (into personal viewpoint territory) if I’m not hiding in a cabin in the
Appalachians with my guns and 2 headed-dog (joke) by the year 2040, trying to
avoid the roving bands of mutants (half-joke), I’ll be very surprised. The leader-
ship of this planet has so far shown absolutely no stomach for tackling the REAL
problems facing our world. While everyone wrings their hands about terrorists,
other much more deadly dangers exist right under our noses-and nobody gives
a flying…okay veering into Pit territory now, so I’ll stop.

[P.s. my warship example wasn’t meant to be taken that literally]

179

Um…fission power is already safe. No future tech require. Its the safest form of mass scale power out there in fact, at least if we look at the number of deaths that have actually happened due to both generation, mining and transport of the key fuel source.

Its only a LOCAL problem now…as several others have pointed out. I’d say its a pretty good bet that if its minor problem today, its probably not going to turn into a major one in the future.

Without getting into the whole global warming debate, I don’t see how this is or was the case. Even if we assume everything about global warming is correct, we are only NOW starting to realize the implications.

In addition, no matter what you do, its going to have ramifications. Ok, so using CO2 producing energy sources causes (perhaps) global warming. The alternative is to use Nuclear Energy instead and shift the problem from a global one to a local one. Failing that, I suppose we could go back to pre-industrial technology, or perhaps living in trees. Either one is going to have some fairly substantial impacts both globally AND locally, at least on the human population. There isn’t a free ride here. There isn’t a magical mystery energy source. They all have their pro’s and con’s. Don’t like nukes? Fine. Live with global warming then. Don’t like CO2 emmitting mass power generators? Learn to deal with nuclear power and accept the risks involved. Don’t like either? Learn to live in a cave basically…but don’t be surprised when the rest of humanity doesn’t follow you in there.

Everything in life has trade offs. No one is saying that nuclear power is without risk. What they are saying, and what the eco-nutballs (and perhaps yourself) are failing to understand is how to weigh those risks against the possible benifits. We’ve been bombarded for decades with scare propaganda about nuclear power…but if we look at it rationally we see that its one of the safest, cleanest forms of energy generation at our disposal. Yes, there is the potential for a rather nasty LOCAL disaster when using nuclear energy (there is the potential for local disaster using oil or coal fired plants too of course, but lets leave that aside). We can even look at the worst case disaster sitting there like some kind of Mad Max set there in Russia.

But then we have the whole global warming debate. IF the majority of scientists are correct, this is a global problem. So, we have to weigh our options, evaluate the risks in a rational way, and then accept the risks of what we decide to use, while attempting to minimize them. Looked at rationally, without all the fear and propaganda, nuclear energy is the clear choice. Yes the waste is nasty, yes it needs to be handled with care, yes there is the potential for a local disaster…but the risks of using the other available forms of power generation currently available far out weigh those of nuclear energy. Without even getting into how many deaths something like coal causes a year, the fact that using it has the potential to cause an ecological disaster on a GLOBAL scale SHOULD make nuclear energy the clear choice. If people would or could think rationally about it.

-XT

180

Given that the majority of the coal power plant operators I’ve met with (and I’ve been to probably 2/3 of all the coal power plants in the US) have 4-year Engineering degrees, and that I’ve met a lot of Master’s degreed operators, I call bullshit. I cannot by extension imagine that nuclear operators would be less educated than coal operators.

That doesn’t mean I haven’t met operators that weren’t dumber than dirt. I have, many times. But they’re a small minority, and sometimes only keeping their jobs due to the protection their BEW. :rolleyes: