We should stop running away from radiation
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust any data that came from an authoritarian government, especially one run by a bunch of Russians, especially one that collapsed 20 years ago (likely destroying countless incriminating documents in the process), especially concerning a deeply embarrassing incident such as Chernobyl.
The public may be overreacting to the nuclear threat posed by the Fukushima reactors, but this seems like a subtle attempt at rewriting history.
(I wouldn't be surprised if there is a UN report 20 years from now proving that Saddam Hussein did indeed win re-election with 99% of the vote.)
Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
If Chernobyl, the article mentions only a small number of fatalities, but I've read in many places over the years that thousands of people (especially in Belarus, who got the worst of it) have since died from cancer and other radiation induced diseases. I've also seen documentaries about the many sick and deformed children that were born since, because of their parents high exposure to radiation.
Finally, when I was growing up, I saw many affected children first hand, as a lot of families in my school at the time would host children affected by the accident during the summer.
If you were referring to Fukushima, I agree that it doesn't come close to Chernobyl (that we know of, at least), but the linked article makes Chernobyl sound "not that bad" too, which I cannot agree with.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_th...
According to your link:
- UNSCEAR claims 6000 cases of cancer.
- IAEA claims 4000 deaths
- Greenpeace claims 200,000 deaths
- IPPNW claims 10,000 - 50,000 cases of cancer
- New York Academy of Sciences claims 985,000 deathsIn the nineties, families in the country around where I grew up, here in Ireland, hosted children from Chernobyl every summer, so that they could breath clean air and eat clean food. I've also seen documentaries about birth defects in the years after the accident. Perhaps there weren't too many fatalities, but a lot of lives were very badly affected by the radiation and a lot more people died due to slow, radiation induced diseases. For example, in the reports, how many people who died of cancer or other diseases since were counted?
So, I agree with you - downplaying the dangers of radiation is careless and playing with peoples lives.
Still, 36 hours in a very high radiation environment is a very long time. also, I'm not sure how long the people in Chernobyl itself were there before being told something was wrong.
Hell, the soviet union didn't admit anything was wrong until a couple of days after, when the radiation was noticed by engineers in Sweden[1].
[1] http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html
From what I've read, the Soviet government used cloud seeding to force the radiation to be rained down on Belarus because they wanted to prevent it from reaching higher populated areas like Moscow. Unfortunately, afaik, they never told the Belarusian people about it so they never had a chance of evacuating beforehand. Its pretty sad.
You can go to hospitals anywhere in the world and hear exactly the same stories. Kids get cancer. It sucks, but it's a fact of life. Is there any evidence that these cancers were caused by Chernobyl?
- Between 1970 and 2001 thyroid cancer incidence rates in Belarus increased from 0.4 per 100 000 to 3.5 per 100 000 among males (+775%) and from 0.8 per 100 000 to 16.2 per 100 000 among females (+1925%).
- The relative increases in areas with ‘higher exposure’ from the Chernobyl disaster exceeded those in ‘lower exposure’ areas with marked increases in thyroid cancer incidence rate ratios among both genders and in all age groups.
- The largest increases were observed among people from ‘higher exposure’ areas ages 0-14 yr at time of diagnosis, suggesting that a high prevalence of pre-existing iodine deficiency, in combination with unique susceptibility among younger people, might have contributed to potential carcinogenic exposures to the thyroid.
- The magnitude of increases observed is remarkable given the relatively limited time interval since Chernobyl ...
From: http://www.ceecis.org/iodine/04a_consequences/05_nuclear/Che...
[Edit: formatting]
I'd really like that we put things into perspective a bit.
[1] http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/adolescents.pd...
[1] For example, heres a documentary on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCCVU4y7oE Note that I don't know how accurate this particular documentary is and I haven't watched it all, but I have seen others with similar content. WARNING: don't watch if you're not prepared to see severely deformed children. Its not very nice at all, really :(
I've heard a few such stories myself recently. About children in Serbia and west Bulgaria, born around the depleted plutonium bombing.
Googling a bit, I think you mean depleted uranium, but perhaps wrote 'plutonium' because one of the problems with depleted uranium is that it is (often?) contaminated with plutonium. Just guessing.
This is a pernicious meme that frequently recurs on this board. Reject it.
(The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, has occurred in the open within the context of a reasonably free society, so it may provide us with data that proves useful for future nuclear accidents.)
Okay, I'm just going to set your claim against the introduction to the report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_...) referenced in the BBC article.
There has been an unprecedented effort by the international
community to assess the magnitude and characteristics
of the health effects due to the radiation exposure
resulting from the accident. As early as August 1986, a
widely attended international gathering, the “Post-Accident
Review Meeting”, was convened in Vienna. The resulting
report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group
(INSAG) contained a limited but essentially correct early
account of the accident and its expected radiological consequences
[I31]. In May 1988, the International Scientific
Conference on the Medical Aspects of the Accident at the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [I32] held in Kiev summarized
the available information at the time and confirmed
that some children had received high doses to the thyroid. In
May 1989, scientists obtained a more comprehensive insight
into the scale of the consequences of the accident at an ad
hoc meeting convened at the time of the 38th session of
UNSCEAR [G15, K25]. In October 1989, the former Soviet
Union formally requested “an international experts’ assessment”
and, as a result, the International Chernobyl Project
(ICP) [I5] was launched in early 1990; its conclusions and
recommendations were presented at an International Conference
held in Vienna, 21–24 May 1991 [I5]. Many national
and international initiatives7 followed aimed at developing a
better understanding of the accident consequences and in
assisting in their mitigation. The results of these initiatives
were presented at the 1996 International Conference on One
Decade After Chernobyl8 [I29]. There was a broad agreement
on the extent and character of the consequences.
...
The objective of the present annex is to provide an
authoritative and definitive review of the health effects
observed to date that are attributable to radiation exposure
due to the accident and to clarify the potential risk projections,
taking into account the levels, trends and patterns of
radiation dose to the exposed populations. The Committee
has evaluated the relevant new information that has become
available since the 2000 Report, in order to determine
whether the assumptions used previously to assess the radiological
consequences are still valid. In addition, it recognized
that some issues merited further scrutiny and that its
work to provide the scientific basis for a better understanding
of the radiation‑related health and environmental effects
of the Chernobyl accident needed to continue. The information
considered included the behaviour and trends of the
long‑lived radionuclides in foodstuff and the environment in
order to improve the estimates of exposure of relevant population
groups, and the results of the latest follow‑up studies
of the health of the exposed groups. The effects of radiation
on plants and animals following the Chernobyl accident are
discussed separately in annex E, “Effects of ionizing radiation
on non‑human biota”. Other effects of the accident, in
particular, distress and anxiety, and socio‑economic effects,
were considered by the Chernobyl Forum [W5] but are
outside the Committee’s remit.
The Committee, in general, bases its assessments on
reports appearing in peer‑reviewed scientific literature and
on information submitted officially by Governments in
response to its requests. However, the results of many of
the studies related to the Chernobyl accident have been
presented at scientific meetings without formal scientific
peer review. The Committee decided that it would only
make use of such information when it could judge that the
results and the underlying work were scientifically and
technically sound.That was probably right decision, and I find it entirely plausible that they did great work given the enormous limitations that they faced, but there is only so much you can do when the authoritarian regime standing in your way happens to finally disintegrate, years later.
Also, your argument could be turned on its head. If there hadn't been the kind of secrecy and attempts to cover up what had happened, way fewer people would have been affected.
That said, I'm not a big fan of nuclear because I don't like making commitments for thousands of years. A lot can happen in that timeframe. Wars, corrupt regimes, a collapse of our entire industrial society, etc.
Namely, that taking Chernobyl in its proper context (one nuclear plant out of many) and even taking Fukishima to be an event of similar magnitude, nuclear power plants still present significant advantages over coal from a pain-and-hardship caused per watt-hour generated.
No one's arguing that nuclear power is safe. However, I'd rather have the last unprocessable nuclear waste from a generation of reactors buried in a well-shielded container under my house than live downwind from a coal power plant. Ideally of course I would like neither, but the fact is millions of people live downwind from coal power plants, and that is a much bigger problem than Fukishima. That problem could be mitigated if as those coal plants die they are replaced with modern nuclear reactors. Yes, it will cause other problems, but these will be smaller when taken in aggregate. (Even if they are more dramatic when they happen.)
Japanese can resolve this hysteria after seeing economic costs. However, the governments in lawsuit prone countries will go out of their way to make it very safe in almost everything. eg low speed limits, many speed bumps, background checks, etc. Otherwise the government would get sued for not doing enough, affecting the budget.
Educational Video of Japanese Nuclear Boy for kids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN2hSVxA
Maybe those who think nuclear energy is very green might join the author? I am sure we can find a few 10,000, and then we have room for all that nuclear waste.
The media overhyping things is nothing new and doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean nuclear power is safe, for example. Unfortunately, real journalism has all but disappeared from the world, to be replaced by what we'd refer to as trolling or link-whoring online.
There seem to be a small group of people who want to play the contrarian game and claim that people are overreacting to the potentially huge damage the contamination (as opposed to radiation) that Fukushima is going to result in.
It's easy to be holed up safe in Oxford and claim radiation is not an issue. Why doesn't this gentleman volunteer to assist at the plants if he thinks radiation is no danger at all.
The people running away or worrying about the situation don't care so much about the levels now. They care about the levels if/when shit happens, and only use the radiation seen now to check how good things are handled. And for now it's not as if tepco's engineers, as goog as they are, are yet mastering the situation.
I think it is only reasonable to ask that avoidable civilian technology be insured against harm done by it. So: how much would this insurance cost? Cleanup, health care costs, disability payments, loss of property?
Given just a slight increase in illness rate for the sheer number of people involved can give a hard to detect but significant cost. An insurer will have to set aside enough money for the expected amount of payout. What would Warren Buffett's premiums be? Some claims will be excluded by the insurer, and the rest of the population will probably be called to for economic assistance: how much will that be? What is the opportunity cost of having half a million people cleaning up the place instead of being productive?
Feel free to peruse the [IAEA report about Chernobyl](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernoby...). What is the total economic cost? Maybe "hundreds of billions of dollars"? See the report for estimates.
So yes, we shouldn't run away from radiation. We should clean it up safely, then come to our senses and stop dispersing any more of it. This technology is a dead-end for normal energy production.
Stop spreading such nonsense articles, please! Just because the immediate impact is comparatively low, that doesn't mean it's harmless.
Radiation is a carcinogen, yes. But it turns out that radiation is a really puny carcinogen. A radiation dosage which will probably kill you if delivered rapidly -- 4 Sieverts -- has only a small chance of causing cancer -- about 10% (and an even lower chance of causing lethal cancer).
This is called the "linear hypothesis" and is widely used. They use it in medicine to decide if diagnostic scans are worth the risk. The risk could actually be lower; some scientists think there's a threshold below which there's no risk. There's too much statistical uncertainty at low exposure levels to know for sure.
This is the course site, click webcast lectures on the side: http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html
It's easy to get cancer by smoking. It's really really hard to get cancer from radiation without giving yourself a lethal acute dose of radiation in the process.
Half of all wild boars shot in central Europe can not be sold because their radiation levels are still too high for general consumption because of Chernobyl.
This particular article doesn't say so explicitly, but has links in the margin to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473
Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for people and environment) and economical. A good discussion about the economic aspects can be found at: "Cost, not Japan crisis, should scrub nuclear power" http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisi...
But even with that said, why doesn't it make sense to compare the number of casualties and damages between different accidents? It's a way to put things into perspective. People have in general a rather faulty sense of proportion and understanding of statistics.
The Tsunami deaths have nothing to do with radiation. hence they don't belong into an article about radiation.
We fear things that are easy to imagine over common but hard to see risks. The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic. So the death of tens of thousands due to the tsunami will never register the same emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl.
It's the same in startup marketing, incidentally. That's why they give people testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of the opposite: the media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible things happening due to invisible killer radiation. A few bad things probably will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were also buried under a 12m wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about that.
I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it.
It's not my fault if the media tries to milk Fukushima for all it's worth (they live on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? I didn't follow the stories too closely, so I suppose you refer to some measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman.
What I heard is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an accident 200km away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the Tokyo water supply. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1mm rise in water levels. And to be honest, I admit if I was living in Tokyo, I would probably still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation levels rise some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not any static data point).
And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of).
They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search & rescue operations.
> If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits?
Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough.
Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant, there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get further away that they're mostly harmless.
> And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of).
I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a much larger multiplier than the other papers I compared it to).
Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of that (again, depending on which numbers you believe).
I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like improving them can save a lot of people.
But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.
As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense.
I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear power plants with fossile fuel plants.
How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat to anyone who doesn't get close.
Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in more detail than I can:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-...
My main point about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You experience it every single day, even if you don't realize it. All sorts of background radiation is constantly going through your body. Not to mention intentional exposures like chest X-rays.
It's sort of like fire, then. You can burn yourself and you should treat it carefully. You should fear it enough to avoid burning yourself, but not much more than that. It's also going to become just about as necessary to civilization as fire, soon, from the look of things.
Maybe fusion will pan out and I hope so, but people are then going to have to learn all about neutrons and why they can make normal materials become radioactive.... But maybe clever moderator designs will make it so that most neutrons are absorbed by easily replaceable things that don't become anything nasty.
How long does supply of nuclear fuels last anyway? Isn't it a limited resource? Will it be as necessary to civilization as SUVs?
From the article it seems clear that inhaling or digesting contaminated stuff is dangerous.
However, entropy will ultimately kill the universe. Once the entire universe runs out of available energy (which it can manage without any human help), then we're screwed barring radical new physics that can give us answers like "this is how you create another universe and then travel there."
The good news is that it will take a looooooong time before anybody seriously has to worry about that.
>Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.
From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... :
"Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over. They vary by the part of your body that was treated and the dose of radiation you received. Late side effects may include infertility, joint problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."
From the HN comment guidelines:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of
calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say;
1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that we don't regard radiation doses in the hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous, and yet we regard any environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over. The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view.
why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you brain moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when 20S deposited to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the patient receives) rarely kills the patient while 4-5S received "environmentally" during comparable period of time would almost always be lethal.
The article looks like it was written by somebody who is uneducated and has problems with logic, i.e. moron. Too bad it was written by a professional with an agenda. Intellectual dishonesty is much worse than plain stupidity and ignorance.
You're right - the HN debate culture has gone down. The strongest and most logical argument you've managed in the discussion on radiation doses [non]equivalency is to call me a troll.
I also agree shadowsun7, you could cut down on the name calling and be a bit more civilized in your comments. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation but weakens your message.
this article is a clear propaganda piece designed to evoke such primitive logical conclusions. But even primitive logical analysis by a rudimentary educated person shouldn't have missed the significant difference between localized deep-tissue dose delivery ("meat cooking") in the radiotherapy where 2-3S is delivered per session normally without any lethal risk and 25-50% lethality of 2-3S delivered whole-body (100% lethal if repeated several times during period of several weeks).
>be a bit more civilized in your comments
yep, taking an intentionally misleading propaganda by a professional for a blabbing of a moron isn't that civilized.
First, nuclear power started out as a cold war thing; they built nuclear plants because of one very interesting side-product required to build nuclear bombs. These days in those countries that already have nuclear weapons, that's a secondary concern - but this is where it came from. And for countries that don't yet have nuclear weapons, that's the reason they want to build them.
Second, the accident in Chernobyl. Hold your statistics and studies. Just pause for a moment. Think about this accident. All children all over Europe were told to stay inside for a few days. And take Iodine. Any technology that is able to cause that is not fit to generate power. In fact the only man made processes that can cause such an event are nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
Fail safe plants unfortunately don't exist - they're not fail safe, as evident in Fukushima. Does the chain reaction stop when everything fails? No? Then it's not fail-safe. Obviously.
I am not a worrier - but when you're playing with forces that cannot be controlled with the technology we have, you have to do the smart thing and skip them for now. There's plenty of alternatives - I think the nuclear thing is a distraction from them, and kept alive by a very active lobby.
I am happy to change my opinion if you come up with a new process that's actually fail-safe, that's actually guaranteed to not leak radiation, and that doesn't produce nuclear waste.
What we need to do with both nuclear and conventional power facilities is close everything from pre-1985 or so. The pollution coming from the dirty, grandfathered-in (to higher pollution) coal plants in the South, for example, are very likely to kill and sicken a lot more people than nuclear power.
I don't like commenting on things I know only a little about, however, one thing is getting overlooked when people make this argument.
The newer designs are usually PWRs which are stable by design as loss of water or power slows down the reaction. Unfortunately, they are expensive to build (billions of dollars) and have a limited life due to the challenges of containing pressure with metals exposed to radiation. This makes them barely economic over their lifetime at todays energy prices.
The UK has allowed the planning and building of new PWRs. Unfortunately, the companies involved are reluctant to go ahead without some sort of subsidy or carbon tax.
If any of the above is wrong, I'd like to be corrected. However, I feel this is a valid point that is rarely made.
Solar and wind energy are not reliable enough to provide base-load coverage, hydro power is restricted to very specific terrain and has a devastating effect on local ecology, and really the only other option is fossil fuels.
At this point, the options literally are nuclear, or fossil fuels. And burning more and more coal for power (which puts out more radiation and kills more people than a nuclear plant, FYI) because anything less than perfection is not suitable just seems like a really, really shortsighted idea.
An alternative energy source does not need to be perfect to be worth switching to. It just needs to be better than the status quo. And nuclear power, currently, is very much better than coal.
... and isn't any safer than nuclear power. Four people died when the Japan earthquake caused a dam to fail -- that's more deaths than the Fukushima NPP has caused, but oddly enough nobody is calling for a worldwide halt to dam construction.
[citation needed] I live in (western) Europe, and remember neither of these; neither does Wikipedia. Some milk and vegetables were destroyed as precautionary measures, but that is about it.
The Fukushima NPP is very old. Reactor 1 was already scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of March, in fact.
Does the chain reaction stop when everything fails? No? Then it's not fail-safe. Obviously.
At the Fukushima NPP, the chain reactions in reactors 1, 2, and 3 stopped about 5 seconds after the earthquake hit, due to the automatic SCRAM triggered by the detection of abnormal ground acceleration.
In the case the (very old) reactor design used at Fukushima, this was an active insertion; modern power plants use passive SCRAM (usually relying only on gravity) so that even if everything fails the chain reaction will still be shut down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
There have been a lot of other dam failures that killed people, too.
And don't get me started on coal. I've seen estimates that pollution from coal kills 24,000 people every year in the U.S. alone. That's not even from accidents, it's just normal operation.
So I'm not too concerned about the relative risk of nuclear plants. All modern plants are far safer than Chernobyl.
But people are working on ideas that would meet your specs. The liquid thorium reactor, for example, produces orders of magnitude less waste, which is only dangerous for a few centuries. The fuel is liquid, and if it starts to overheat, a plug melts and drains it into a wide basin to cool off. The reactor can also dispose of our existing nuclear wsste.
The Thorium reactor has a lot of problems. Engineering problems that are not solved.
Remember the German Thorium reactor, the HTR 300. It died with a whimper.
What we really don't need is giving nuclear engineers more money to create huge nightmares.
The first thing before ANY nuclear engineer could come back with another idea is to provide us with a safe storage technology and clean up failed attempts like in Asse II.
Believing that the next hundred billions on new nuclear technology will be better spend than the last ones, is just naive. Especially given that the basic question of storing the waste is totally unsolved. The US abandoned now Yucca. Germany has also no storage site. Instead the waste is piling up in totally inadequate places - spent fuel is stored in pools near reactors and in dry storage near reactors.
And you're talking like nuclear engineers are some sort of freaks just waiting to unleash the next horror upon the world.
The fact is that if we want to realize UN millennium goals we need more energy. If we want to help poor asians and africans, we need more energy. If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy.
Basically only obstacle in our path of increased welfare and general well being (peace also!) on the world is access to more, cheaper energy.
And newsflash - hydro, solar and wind won't cut it. They might if we build a world supergrid. But that won't happen for at least 40 years (If we had necessary tech today - it would take 20-40 years to get it built).
So what are you proposing? Or are you just washing your hands and laying off the burden from your soul?
The US does not need more energy. The US needs to start thinking about using less energy. About every country in the industrialized world uses MUCH MUCH less energy.
If you think the US lifestyle is sustainable, then you are dreaming.
Renewable will fully power us here in Germany in 40 years or less. We have started a decade ago working on that. Checkout the progress renewable energy has made here in the last decade. This is combined with energy saving based on more efficient industrial processes, higher standards, and so on.
If you guys sit on your ass, it is not my problem.
I have for example no car. I use public transport. I live in a city where already experimental fully hydrogen powered busses are being tested in regular use. I'm also sitting in a winter garden right now which is 25 degrees celsius in March - powered by the sun...
not everybody is fucking lazy like you guys.
1. I'm not from US - and I wasn't speaking about US. I was speaking about rest of the world. Which whether you like it or not wants to live american lifestyle.
2. Current american model is indeed sustainable if we manage to bring cost of energy (total cost, including intangibles) to a low enough level.
3. I also try to minimize my impact upon world by using as few resources as I can. Being economic is fine and good. But it won't solve all our problems.
4. You resorted to an ad-hominem attack upon my person you also dared to insult me by calling me fucking lazy - when all I wanted to hear from you is what kind of alternative you propose.
5. I'm not denying that substantial progress has been made in the field of renewable power sources. The problem is that its just not enough.
6. You are vehemently claiming that Germany will be completely on renewables in 40 years. Thats what green power lobies claim. Green power is also a huge industry. Never forget that.
edit: Calling an engineer technocrat just shows that you don't even understand either the meaning of the word "engineer" or either "technocrat" for that matter.
Technocracy means for example that engineers are the decision makers. Here in Germany the decision to invest billions into nuclear energy has been supported and promoted by engineers and scientists in all levels of government, government funded research institutes and universities and by companies using their influence on government.
This faulty advice has cost us billions and has left us with some industry ruins and fucked up attempts on storing nuclear waste.
Ordinary people are protesting against this for decades.
However - I have two major issues with it.
1. You assume that green technocracy is "better" than current technocracy. Or are you proposing that we let hysteric extremist (fascist?) wing of green take over?
2. The largest issue of nuclear power is that people who are declaratively for saving environment block any and all attempts to improve current situation. In this sense - the greens are at fault for Fukushima. Otherwise this plant would be probably dismantled 10 years ago and replaced with more modern and safer model. The same goes for nuclear waste - green is playing an extremely dangerous game of trying to prove that the problem of nuclear waste is insolvable, by obstructing any attempts of solution.
3. In retrospective - show me single plan created by bureaucrats that stood the test of time.
Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety.
No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in western Europe. Every electricity company is talking about EXTENDING the life of the current plants. Replacing old ones which are running with new ones is the most stupid thing an electricity company can do. What they want is getting the money from the existing plants with as little effort as possible.
Saying renewables have loads of potential just doesn't cut it.
In US last nuclear power plant has been built in 1977. Something similar holds true worldwide (there haven't been that many nuclear power plants built since then). Nuclear power production is probably THE most regulated industry in the world (and probably state owned a lot). Newer better plants haven't been built since, guess who, didn't allow it. These old reactors should be shut down and replaced, but since coal power plants are also not allowed to be built (by guess whom) and there are only that many rivers you can turn into accumulation lakes (not to mention disastrous effect on environment - species are dying out due to hydro power). World is in this weird deadlock where we are forced to expand lifetimes of these old nuclear power stations, just to keep going.
And I'm accusing you of being disingenious by pretending that current renewable plans won't have adverse side effects. And by pretending that nuclear industry is in its current state due to greed of plant operators.
And you still haven't provided me with an alternative strategy for while we wait for renewables to save us. We have 40 years of burning coal to meet our demands for energy in front of us - whether you accept it or not. We could diminish some of that impact by building safer, better nuclear power plants.
We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.
To attain our conflicting goals of improving living conditions for entire human populace, without increasing power consumption the average westerner would have to forfeit 80% of his energy consumption.
So you're telling me that we as species are willing to "devolve" to a standardized standard of living that is somewhere in the ballpark of early 50's? If so I think you are either dishonest or severely lack perspective and knowledge of human species.
I honestly believe that finding additional power sources and utilizing them to satisfy and further expand our consumption of power is the most pragmatic, fair and painless way forward for our species.
To express myself poetically - I believe that god wants us to increase our power consumption up to the level where we will be able to consume entire star systems and beyond. I might be weird, but I also believe that single "purpose" of life is to increase entropy. Thus a perfect life form would expand its power consumption to the level where it would drain the whole universe of its energy potential.
Disclaimer: Proposed 80% is a number I pulled out of where the sun don't shine.
It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals.
It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Your poetic expression is utterly disgusting. What happens to your perfect life form after it has drained the whole universe of its energy potential? Or even before it has drained it, when the sun don't shine?
Huh? How do you propose increasing standard of living for 70% of worlds population that currently uses way less than you or me or our US cousins? ( Total Energy consumption per capita: US 87KWh, EU 40KWh, China 18KWh, India 6KWh, The World Average=6.6KWh). Unless you try to argue that standard of living has nothing to do with energy consumption or even that 3rd world people have higher standard of living than we do?
>It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
It is? If we freeze the quota of produced energy - then we have turned energy market into a zero sum market. Thus any increase of consumption by one party is counterbalanced by decrease of another. The 50's and 80% is indeed wrong - since I just used them as arbitrary placeholders. Please don't expect me to go on a 10year research, just due to an internet argument.
>You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You haven't provided a single proof of your claims. You just keep spinning your make-believe story. Also I didn't say you're dishonest AND lacking in perspective. I said that you are either - but you might as well be both.
>You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Its your delusion that there are painless or negative side effect free power sources. Those used currently are used since in fact they (due to various reasons) ARE the LEAST painful of known options. Also for nuclear power we by now know very well what the negative side effects are (under what circumstances).
What you're lobbying for has only plans - like some very smart people predicted we would be on Mars in 40 years. I certainly believe that all solar, wind, water and trees society is possible. But we need to get by until we get there.
Regarding my belief regarding energy consumption of living beings... The whole universe is trying to equalize its energy potentials (the entropy) and life is just one of mechanisms that helps to dissipate them. So any life at all, now matter how green and how much it tries to not eat animals (instead eating imported papayas?) it will contribute to the untimely thermic death of the universe.
I never stated that there were painless or negative side effect free power sources, you are the one who stated it was the most painless way forward. The additional power sources you are advocating are nuclear. I said nothing about eating animals. The whole universe isn't trying to do anything. When the power sources you speak of are consumed by your ideal life form, is it going to consume itself? Have you ever heard that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form? Contributing to as animals do, against directly causing like you advocate your ideal form doing, are different notions.
As far as my hypothetical uber life form goes - its an thought experiment. It was never meant to go and devour all there is.
I'm well aware of conservation of energy and I wasn't talking about it. I was talking about equalization of potentials. Thats what entropy means. The tendency that our universe has to equalize energy potentials. Thats what wind is. And thats why stars shine, the ice melts etc... Because if an more stable (read equal) energy state is available - the universe will find a way to achieve it.
Just as all elements heavier the iron try to (and will eventually) fission into lighter particles and just as elements lighter than iron try to (and again will eventually) fuse together, until eventually whole universe will consist of nothing but iron atoms. That would be so called thermic death of the universe, which is valid only in some end of universe scenarios, which depend upon shape of spacetime.
For current production reactors, that's enough to buy time but not enough to completely prevent meltdown. Some more advanced reactors can't melt down, due to this effect. Pebble beds are one. Another is the Integral Fast Breeder, which we had working at the Argonne national laboratory back in the 90s. It was so safe, they shut down the cooling system entirely, twice, and each time the reaction just quietly stopped. The reactor was also designed to be proliferation-resistant.
If you're concerned about nuclear waste, fast breeders are the way to go. Instead of using one percent of the potential of the fuel, like current reactors do, they use it all. They eat nuclear waste and depleted uranium. Clinton was anti-nuclear and shut the project down, so now instead of using depleted uranium for fuel, we shoot it at people to secure oil supplies.
Personally, I'm not that concerned about the waste. From the book Physics for Future Presidents, page 176:
"Colorado, where much of the uranium is obtained, is a geologically active region, full of faults and fissures and mountains rising out of the prairie, and its surface rock contains about a billion tons of uranium. The radioactivity in this uranium is 20 times greater than the legal limit for Yucca Mountain, and it will take more than 13 billion years--not just a few hundred--for the radioactivity to drop by a factor of 10. Yet water that runs through, around, and over this radioactive rock is the source of the Colorado River, which is used for drinking water in much of the Wst, including Los Angeles and San Diego. And unlike the glass pellets that store the waste in Yucca Mountain, most of the uranium in the Colorado ground is water-soluble. Here is the absurd-sounding conclusion: if the Yucca Mountain facility were at full capacity and all the waste leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed to reach groundwater, the danger would still be 20 times less than that currently posed by natural uranium leaching into the Colorado River."
Of course we're actually storing wastes on site. I'm not sure why the anti-nuclear people who shut down Yucca thought that was better. But it does have the advantage of leaving the fuel available for fast breeders.