EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

Electronics => Power & Renewable Energy => Topic started by: Marco on June 22, 2018, 07:12:16 pm

Title: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 22, 2018, 07:12:16 pm
My nation wants to enact a law that the CO2 emissions in 2030 have to be reduced by 49% relative to 1990. Part of this is supposed to be the entire elimination of gas in home heating. Our electricity is almost 2.5x more expensive than gas for heating ... increasing isolation for the existing housing stock can help a little, but unless you build entirely new walls and roofs around the existing ones there's limited gains to be had. Even ignoring that yearly costs will nearly double even with investment in isolation, it's going to cost households billions to install electric heating. Of course industry and electricity generation are far larger producers of CO2, households despite the staggering costs would only be a drop in the pond. Once the law for reduction is on the books you can be certain the state will be sued if they don't try hard enough by environmentalists.

Why the fuck are we in the EU if our tiny fucking little nation will try to value signal entirely alone? What is that supposed to fucking accomplish? Installing wind mills and making industrial electricity cheap helps industry competitiveness at least, while raising consumer electricity prices and lowering disposable income, just like in Germany ... but what my government is trying now will murder our economy.

Either they've gone full retard, or this is just intentional sabotage of the Dutch economy to the benefit of poorer countries in the EU, as well as part of a small attack on Russia. Disingenuous and downright treasonous. Don't attribute to malice is all fine and well, but this is next level retardation.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Potato on June 22, 2018, 07:43:54 pm
You should follow our solution
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Howardlong on June 22, 2018, 07:45:00 pm
You should follow our solution

Dangerous talk!
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 22, 2018, 08:03:17 pm
The EU isn't really forcing this on us, at least not in the sense of explicit laws and regulations (although I'm 100% certain high level international discussion play a role in it, this is meant to reduce dependence on Russian gas). Our politicians are inflicting these wounds on us, pretending the consequences won't be disastrous. Media and academia going along with it, for fear of being on the wrong side of history ... and getting bumped off the globalist trough. If you want your invitation to Davos and a future in (European) politics you better toe the line.

Populists and occasionally an old pensioned relic who doesn't want in on the globalist through might speak the truth (https://www.fluxenergie.nl/klimaatwet-is-onzin-voorop-willen-lopen-is-betekenisloos/) but everyone else is too scared (can't make a google translate link, it's old board director of E.On stating the obvious, there is no meaning in going ahead of the pack in CO2 reductions ... this belongs at the EU level).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on June 22, 2018, 08:07:45 pm
But the retards are in house.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on June 22, 2018, 08:33:40 pm
Once energy prices go up, better insulation is saving you more money.  :-DD

It depends on how electric heating is implemented. With a reasonable quality heat pump, the overall energy costs may not be higher than with heating by just burning natural gas.  AFAIK the Netherlands currently uses quite a lot of combined heat and electricity. So it could be a good match to have the larger units to also produce electricity and the smaller ones to use that electricity for heating. If just using resistive heater it is already as efficient has direct heating with gas.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Synthtech on June 22, 2018, 08:34:29 pm
Australia is heading the same way into extreme energy poverty. They are shutting down and demolishing our base load power stations one by one (and we don’t have many) and although we have enormous oil reserves the country does not have a single refinery. 
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 22, 2018, 08:40:59 pm
We’re doing the worst. Ignoring the self righteous suicide going on, all our reactors are ancient and falling to bits, sellafield is a disaster zone and prices are going up. Coal is looking like a good option again.

Gas has to go though.

Looking at off grid power solutions myself. At some point this will all fall on its arse. 

Ignore climate laws. They are there only for the narrow window when necessity is low. We’re in a relative bubble of luxury at the moment.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: NANDBlog on June 22, 2018, 08:55:59 pm
Now you tell me, I'm moving there on this weekend...
In any case, I agree with the politicians on this. Electric floor heating is very cheap to install on new homes. It is less bulky, easier to adjust per room, and gives a much nicer comfort. We are talking about thousands of euros less upfront cost. And you can spend the same money on solar.
And with a few extra offshore wind farm it is already solved.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 22, 2018, 09:16:07 pm
It makes little sense as a tiny country to be best in class while the biggest countries are abandoning the environmental deals. I am afraid it is going to be:
"And we are all going down together...."
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 22, 2018, 09:29:49 pm
If just using resistive heater it is already as efficient has direct heating with gas.
Our electricity is very expensive and only getting moreso, I'm sure you can sympathise.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: jpanhalt on June 22, 2018, 09:33:18 pm
I don't know.  I have great faith in the people of the Netherlands and their resourcefulness.    They can save the world.   

Now, the only  question, is there too much, too little, or just enough CO2?  Geological processes, except for a few volcanoes, tend to remove CO2.  In the 1950's, that concern led to a prediction of "snowball Earth" (See Scientific American article of the ephinomous title).  Earth is outside the "Goldilocks" zone of the Sun.  Of course, Al Gore had not launched his political career yet based on a  lie.

I find it hard to believe that one traitor's avarice will change the real science.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: NiHaoMike on June 22, 2018, 09:48:20 pm
Directed heating/cooling is a solution that is often overlooked. Pretty much just use infrared sensors to detect where the people are in the room and direct the heating/cooling as needed. A very basic implementation could be a Raspberry Pi with a low resolution thermal imager controlling some servo motors that point an infrared heat lamp, with the heat lamp phase angle controlled.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: MK14 on June 22, 2018, 09:59:41 pm
Directed heating/cooling is a solution that is often overlooked. Pretty much just use infrared sensors to detect where the people are in the room and direct the heating/cooling as needed. A very basic implementation could be a Raspberry Pi with a low resolution thermal imager controlling some servo motors that point an infrared heat lamp, with the heat lamp phase angle controlled.

Good/interesting idea.

But any objects you touch/hold/use, will be at a rather cold temperature (so they would be unpleasant to touch). Also what about humidity, and the tendency for water to condensate on things, if there are significant temperature differences, in the same room.
Also, there is a risk of cold air draughts.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 22, 2018, 10:01:05 pm
When I was a kid we just got told "put a bloody jumper and some socks on and stop moaning"  :-DD
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: sleemanj on June 22, 2018, 10:14:21 pm
A quick google suggests that NL retail electricity pricing is not far removed from NZ retail electricity pricing. 

Here in NZ electrical heating is by FAR the most common heating method (around 80%), and our housing stock is traditionally very poorly insulated, we do not do "central heating" like you softies in rest of the world, wood fires have been on the decline because of the hassle, expense and environmental problems, coal fires are mostly right out, gas is bottle supply only in the vast majority of the country (and so not used much, gas hot water sometimes and the rare gas fire). 

So in short, reducing gas burning for heating is not the economic disaster you think it is, especially over such a long term, insulate, use heat pumps and dress warmer in winter, you don't need to be able to walk around your house in nothing but a budgie smuggler during the middle of winter.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 22, 2018, 10:20:50 pm
My nation wants to enact a law that the CO2 emissions in 2030 have to be reduced by 49% relative to 1990. Part of this is supposed to be the entire elimination of gas in home heating. Our electricity is almost 2.5x more expensive than gas for heating ... increasing isolation for the existing housing stock can help a little, but unless you build entirely new walls and roofs around the existing ones there's limited gains to be had. Even ignoring that yearly costs will nearly double even with investment in isolation, it's going to cost households billions to install electric heating. Of course industry and electricity generation are far larger producers of CO2, households despite the staggering costs would only be a drop in the pond. Once the law for reduction is on the books you can be certain the state will be sued if they don't try hard enough by environmentalists.

Why the fuck are we in the EU if our tiny fucking little nation will try to value signal entirely alone? What is that supposed to fucking accomplish? Installing wind mills and making industrial electricity cheap helps industry competitiveness at least, while raising consumer electricity prices and lowering disposable income, just like in Germany ... but what my government is trying now will murder our economy.

Either they've gone full retard, or this is just intentional sabotage of the Dutch economy to the benefit of poorer countries in the EU, as well as part of a small attack on Russia. Disingenuous and downright treasonous. Don't attribute to malice is all fine and well, but this is next level retardation.
You are not reading between the lines.
1) It is a prelude to build new nuclear power plants. The other day I read an article that they removed a small passage which says all energy should be renewable. This means going nuclear and/or storing CO2 underground. The latter ain't gonna happen (unsafe for future generations and chance on earth quakes) so there is your answer.

2) It is a fact that Europe doesn't have much oil and gas reserves (left) so alternative sources and reduction are very important unless you like to sit on some Russian or Arab fist.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: JohnnyMalaria on June 22, 2018, 10:25:46 pm
When I was a kid we just got told "put a bloody jumper and some socks on and stop moaning"  :-DD


And in the summer? Oh, yeah. Sorry.  :-[

(Actually, in the winter a woolly hat makes a huge difference)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Terry01 on June 22, 2018, 10:30:13 pm
When I was a kid we just got told "put a bloody jumper and some socks on and stop moaning"  :-DD

LOL  ;D I must've been in the same class! I was told much the same and if I back chatted too much about it either my ear or arse seemed to get warm seriously quick and sting quite a bit and then a big red hand print appeared!

It was called "skelp"! LOL

Who the f^^k thought that 1 up? A skelp!?  :-DD
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: jordanp123 on June 22, 2018, 10:37:59 pm
How robust is the electric grid in the country ? If they go wholesale to electric heating (I'm assuming the majority will use a heat pump type system), the additional demand would be quite substantial. You'll not only need the generation but the transmission and distribution as well.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Circlotron on June 23, 2018, 02:47:06 am
How robust is the electric grid in the country ? If they go wholesale to electric heating (I'm assuming the majority will use a heat pump type system), the additional demand would be quite substantial. You'll not only need the generation but the transmission and distribution as well.
Let’s not mention the millions of electric cars charging up too, during the night when there is no solar power.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 23, 2018, 06:40:31 am
It depends on how electric heating is implemented. With a reasonable quality heat pump
Retrofitting one in old houses with water+radiator central heating is very expensive. Either we need more expensive and less efficient multistage heatpumps to reach the high water-temperatures necessary, or rip out floors and put in floor heating, or replace all the existing radiators with noisy forced air radiators.

Not to mention that almost all heatpumps are build way too fucking compact and noisy. We are kind of densely populated, I shudder to think what a street full of those monstrosities will sound like. If my government wants to regulate, regulate the noise of these things to 35dbA peak (not on some bullshit low noise setting, which won't be relevant). Lets see the market solve that problem first before we install a metric fuckton of them.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on June 23, 2018, 06:56:23 am
When I was a kid we just got told "put a bloody jumper and some socks on and stop moaning"  :-DD

I still tell my daughter that!

I remember "jack frost" regularly being on the inside of my bedroom window panes.
I remember when just about to get out of bed, looking at the pile of clothes on the floor and explicitly getting my mind around what was necessary to get them all on as fast as possible.
I remember how cold it was when jumping out of a hot bath into the large towel.

I also remember putting this new-fangled loft insulation down, all 1" of it!
I also remember spending days putting papier-mache into the cracks between the ground-floor floorboards.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on June 23, 2018, 07:14:23 am
It depends on how electric heating is implemented. With a reasonable quality heat pump
Retrofitting one in old houses with water+radiator central heating is very expensive. Either we need more expensive and less efficient multistage heatpumps to reach the high water-temperatures necessary, or rip out floors and put in floor heating, or replace all the existing radiators with noisy forced air radiators.

Not to mention that almost all heatpumps are build way too fucking compact and noisy. We are kind of densely populated, I shudder to think what a street full of those monstrosities will sound like. If my government wants to regulate, regulate the noise of these things to 35dbA peak (not on some bullshit low noise setting, which won't be relevant). Lets see the market solve that problem first before we install a metric fuckton of them.
Want to see a f**kton of them, then go to Hong Kong. One wall hanger unit on every apartment window and 20 stories high. Hundreds and hundreds of them on every building.
Probably the noisiest place I've every been.

Global warming is a rort on humanity and so many have been sucked in by this BS, it's truly sad.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 23, 2018, 07:36:43 am
When I was a kid we just got told "put a bloody jumper and some socks on and stop moaning"  :-DD

I still tell my daughter that!

I remember "jack frost" regularly being on the inside of my bedroom window panes.
I remember when just about to get out of bed, looking at the pile of clothes on the floor and explicitly getting my mind around what was necessary to get them all on as fast as possible.
I remember how cold it was when jumping out of a hot bath into the large towel.

I also remember putting this new-fangled loft insulation down, all 1" of it!
I also remember spending days putting papier-mache into the cracks between the ground-floor floorboards.

Exactly. We’ve got used to extreme comfort.

As for Jack Frost on the inside of the window, we used to drawing pin a fleece blanket over the window at night.

Also holding onto a piss until the morning when the sun had been out for a bit. It was that or go down two flights of stairs, through the kitchen and to the toilet at the back which was so cold your arse would stick to the seat. Then everyone would notice you were up first and the “put the kettle on and bring us a drink” message would be shouted down the stairs.

This wasn’t that far back for me either. 90s.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 23, 2018, 09:13:22 am
We should all live underground, nice 12C base temperature no wind/cold/warmth from outside no noise from windows and a nice green grass or other vegetation scrubbing CO2 on top.  :-+
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on June 23, 2018, 09:48:35 am
The BS we've been fed lately is some of the rural land will need to be retired as it won't be needed when other forms of artificial protein come online.
Some in power that think they can flog this BS to the population also maintain in order to look after the environment we need eat less red meats. FFS they don't even know it's one of the most rich sources of iron in our diets which is important for our mental growth and intelligence.......ah yes, we wouldn't want the general population to be intelligent, would we !
Like dumbing down the schools rather than have an intelligent population that could dare to challenge us.

Be warned !
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 23, 2018, 09:52:32 am
FFS they don't even know it's one of the most rich sources of iron in our diets which is important for our mental growth and intelligence.......ah yes, we wouldn't want the general population to be intelligent, would we !

That explains vegans.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on June 23, 2018, 09:58:47 am
FFS they don't even know it's one of the most rich sources of iron in our diets which is important for our mental growth and intelligence.......ah yes, we wouldn't want the general population to be intelligent, would we !

That explains vegans.
Pretty simple, isn't it ?

My dear departed aunty was one and my dad, her bro always said she was mad as a snake.
I found her OK, just not smart with good powers of reason and sometimes just hard work !
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: chris_leyson on June 23, 2018, 10:33:34 am
You can run gas throught fuel cells and get zero emissions. The big problem at the moment is filtering all the impurities out of the gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_fuel_cell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_fuel_cell)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 23, 2018, 11:30:05 am
If my government wants to regulate, regulate the noise of these things to 35dbA peak (not on some bullshit low noise setting, which won't be relevant).
A noise limit on this kind of equipment has been set in the law for a long time ago already.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: ebastler on June 23, 2018, 11:37:01 am
We should all live underground, nice 12C base temperature

Dig a bit deeper if you like it warmer...  ;)

(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/geo_temperature.jpg)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 23, 2018, 12:06:36 pm
 :) what are those places like Friesland Germany 178C are those hot wells or something?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: ebastler on June 23, 2018, 12:36:59 pm
:) what are those places like Friesland Germany 178C are those hot wells or something?

The French and Italian sites are the interesting ones, where temperature rises rather quickly as you go deeper. Due to underground cracks in both cases, it seems. Larderello has hot wells indeed, and Soultz-sous-Forets was chosen as the site for a geothermal power plant.

The Friesland site seems fairly average; I have no idea why that specific site was included in the chart. Maybe that's where the authors of the study lived?  ;)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 23, 2018, 12:52:01 pm
A noise limit on this kind of equipment has been set in the law for a long time ago already.
Slightly higher than 35 db.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Nauris on June 24, 2018, 07:10:02 pm
The French and Italian sites are the interesting ones, where temperature rises rather quickly as you go deeper. Due to underground cracks in both cases, it seems. Larderello has hot wells indeed, and Soultz-sous-Forets was chosen as the site for a geothermal power plant.

The Friesland site seems fairly average; I have no idea why that specific site was included in the chart. Maybe that's where the authors of the study lived?  ;)
Do you have much geothermal energy there in Germany? We have the first pilot plant under construction but that one is only 120C at 6400 m depth. Looks like you have so hot rock there you don't have to drill so damn deep.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: ebastler on June 24, 2018, 08:49:42 pm
Do you have much geothermal energy there in Germany? We have the first pilot plant under construction but that one is only 120C at 6400 m depth. Looks like you have so hot rock there you don't have to drill so damn deep.

To my knowledge Germany does not have many (any?) areas with unusually high geothermal gradients. The above-average areas in the graph above are in Italy and France. I understand approx. 3°C/100m to be a typical global average.

According to this site there are not many "deep" geothermal power plants (depth > 400m, and suitable for generating electricity) -- only 35 MW of electrical power. The large majority of installations are shallow depth, for heat pumps -- around 370.000 of them, generating 4300 MW, but only usable for heating:

http://www.geothermie.de/wissenswelt/geothermie/in-deutschland.html. (http://www.geothermie.de/wissenswelt/geothermie/in-deutschland.html.) (Sorry, German only -- the English version of the site is just a stub.)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on June 26, 2018, 04:51:40 am
Quote
My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Nope.
Some people live in the past.
Some poeple live in the future.

You chose for now, but in the short run, fossil fuels are dead, they're the past.
Live with it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on June 26, 2018, 04:57:55 am
My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Half of the land in your country is located under the sea level.
The sea rise coming from the greenhouse gas emissions will threaten all the dams that keep the seawater out.
I think reducing emissions by half is the minimum you have to do.

You should look to keep your ass dry before looking to keep it warm.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 26, 2018, 10:19:29 am
We're far less than a % of the emissions, it's value signalling, nothing more. Tragedy of the commons doesn't get any less tragic for 1 out of a 1000 not participating. We can't make an impact by steaming ahead ... especially in this way. Just build offshore windmills or something, you still value signal and you give industry low cost electricity. Peons still get screwed, but it's not so bad for the economy.

PS. even with the gas to electric move for residentials, to meet that 50% we still need to either move all the industry out of the country (economic suicide) or import all electricity and pretend that as long as it's generated outside of our country it doesn't count.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on June 26, 2018, 02:39:05 pm
Quote
not so bad for the economy
Bad for the economy ? it's not.
Renewables and building up infrastructure creates a huge lot of jobs.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on June 26, 2018, 02:49:39 pm
Fossil fuels also create lots of jobs, don't they?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 26, 2018, 03:30:36 pm
My nation wants to enact a law that the CO2 emissions in 2030 have to be reduced by 49% relative to 1990.

Doesn't seem very realistic to me. 2030 is like tomorrow. And 28 years have already passed since 1990. The official statements are there: https://www.government.nl/topics/climate-change/eu-policy (https://www.government.nl/topics/climate-change/eu-policy)

This whole CO2 obsession is a bit puzzling. There are so many other sources of pollution and contributors to the greenhouse effect. Why are we obsessing over CO2, and almost CO2 only?
And when are we going to pass laws to SEVERELY decrease fine particles emissions? In a lot of areas they are way over what's recommended for public health despite occasional measures that are definitely not leading to any significant improvement. http://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/en/ (http://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/en/)

Interestingly, water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect by far. Human contribution to the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is still unclear, although it's currently believed to be only marginal. Would be interesting to study this in more details though IMO. It may be indeed marginal on a large scale, but I think it's not on a local basis. A lot of industrial plants, including nuclear power plants, emit large amounts of water vapor. But in a disney-ish world, water is harmless, right?

Regarding home heating, electrical heating is usually very inefficient. Only advanced electrical heating systems have decent efficiency, but then they are expensive and thus are not installed on a large scale. Most installed heaters are still piss-poor junk. Sure it's not directly emitting any gas, but what's the overall outcome? Everyone and their brother is claiming to get rid of nuclear power as well, yet all we are doing is leading to using more nuclear power. Go figure.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Renewable is great but I still fail to see any project that has the potential to replace existing solutions. Total is making large investments in palm oil-based fuels. Is this the future of renewables? :-DD *sigh*

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on June 26, 2018, 03:45:29 pm
I dont buy the CO2/green/AGW hysteria, but the #1 energy resource is finite so we can't go on forever like now, that's for sure. I feel sorry for our sons, because there's not yet any viable substitute that's as good. Population keeps growing, energy resources diminishing... doesn't look good to me!
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 26, 2018, 03:54:21 pm
This is why I send my kids on survival courses when they get old enough.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 26, 2018, 04:02:20 pm
I dont buy the CO2/green/AGW hysteria, but the #1 energy resource is finite so we can't go on forever like now, that's for sure. I feel sorry for our sons, because there's not yet any viable substitute that's as good. Population keeps growing, energy resources diminishing... doesn't look good to me!

Absolutely. Actually, the rate of population growth is decreasing, but at around a bit more than 1% a year (it's ~+1.2% at the moment), it's stll enough to be concerning. Let's consider an average of +1% a year over the next 100 years. That will lead to a population that is 2,7x the current size (which is 7,6 billion I think), so ~20.5 billion. In 200 years, that would be 55.6 billion. Gigantic. 200 years is nothing on a geological or even biological point of view. So unless there is a *drastic* decrease in population growth (which is very likely and may not be pretty), we're up for a tough ride. Numbers are stubborn.

As for solutions, I'm a strong advocate of geothermal energy approaches. Very little investment in those yet AFAIK though.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: NivagSwerdna on June 26, 2018, 04:08:21 pm
My nation wants to enact a law that the CO2 emissions in 2030 have to be reduced by 49% relative to 1990.
I wouldn't worry about it.  My GPS (aka SatNav) claims to know my arrival time when I start out but magically it is always 'correct' when I arrive despite having a completely different value.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 26, 2018, 04:12:21 pm
My nation wants to enact a law that the CO2 emissions in 2030 have to be reduced by 49% relative to 1990.
I wouldn't worry about it.  My GPS (aka SatNav) claims to know my arrival time when I start out but magically it is always 'correct' when I arrive despite having a completely different value.

Continuously adjusting your plan according to what's actually happening is a sure way of getting the plan right every time. Isn't that great?  ;D (It's actually how the "agile" way of planning works >:D )
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: NorthGuy on June 26, 2018, 04:21:23 pm
That will lead to a population that is 2,7x the current size (which is 7,6 billion I think), so ~20.5 billion. In 200 years, that would be 55.6 billion. Gigantic. 200 years is nothing on a geological or even biological point of view. So unless there is a *drastic* decrease in population growth (which is very likely and may not be pretty), we're up for a tough ride. Numbers are stubborn.

I think the planet can support 20 billion max, water being the limiting factor. Although it's hard to come up with good numbers.

The best solution is to give women equal rights to men all across the planet. This will halt the population growth immediately. Of course, without population growth, it'll be enormous burden to support retirement.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 26, 2018, 04:36:56 pm
That will lead to a population that is 2,7x the current size (which is 7,6 billion I think), so ~20.5 billion. In 200 years, that would be 55.6 billion. Gigantic. 200 years is nothing on a geological or even biological point of view. So unless there is a *drastic* decrease in population growth (which is very likely and may not be pretty), we're up for a tough ride. Numbers are stubborn.
I think the planet can support 20 billion max, water being the limiting factor. Although it's hard to come up with good numbers.
Don't worry. In a few decades the population will reach a peak around (IIRC) 8 billion and from then on there will be a natural decline.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: HoracioDos on June 26, 2018, 04:39:12 pm
You should look to keep your ass dry before looking to keep it warm.
With all due respect. Will it make any difference? China, India, USA, Russia won't pay you all the conversion costs and also won't reduce emissions in the short and midterm. I guess it's a lost battle. I think that your politicians should start thinking about which country they would like to invade.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 26, 2018, 04:45:29 pm
My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Half of the land in your country is located under the sea level.
The sea rise coming from the greenhouse gas emissions will threaten all the dams that keep the seawater out.
The dams are being raised to keep track of the rising sea level as part of regular schedule so no worries here. The NL already has the infrastructure and knowledge to keep the water out. Other places without suhc infrastructure will run into trouble. Think about cities like Helsinki or New York. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/29/16830590/nyc-rising-sea-level-visuals-climate-central (https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/29/16830590/nyc-rising-sea-level-visuals-climate-central)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: innkeeper on June 26, 2018, 05:02:15 pm
Do I understand the more advanced countries of the world took the lead in cleaning up emissions, to reduce pollution and more recently reduce the human component to the changing climate (walking the political tightrope with that statement)

but now, emissions are quite low in those countries. however in some 3rd world countries and countries like China are still producing high emissions, also most sea-going vessels are producing high emissions.

why are the countries who are in the lead in cleaning up emissions still beating themselves up trying to make emissions even lower at great personal cost, instead of putting serious pressure on those countries who have not yet caught up to fix their issues, and fix the horrid emissions from sea-going vessels?

where is common sense...




Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on June 26, 2018, 05:33:42 pm
In the US since 1975 cars have pcv, egr, catalytic converter, carbon canister, exhaust air injection, and ran on unleaded fuel. Most europeans believe the US doesn't give a damn about air pollution, but none of these things have been mandatory in Europe until decades later.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 26, 2018, 05:36:07 pm
Continuously adjusting your plan according to what's actually happening is a sure way of getting the plan right every time. Isn't that great?

Then you don't make laws with hard goals, once those are on the books they take on a life of their own. Our government has already been sued for not meeting targets on particle emissions and lost the lawsuit, the same would happen with this. If our government puts "economic suicide in 2030" in a law then a judge will say in 2030, "pull the trigger". There will be probably some compromise by then ... lets just amputate some limbs.

The correct way to do this is at the EU level, so we don't weaken our relative competitiveness with our main trading partners.

PS. hope the Dutch here have a good grasp of German ... that's where all our industry is going to go.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on June 26, 2018, 07:12:33 pm
Quote
so no worries here
Yeah.
People living downstream huge water dams also say they don't worry.
It's always properly maintained, no worries.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 26, 2018, 07:25:33 pm
why are the countries who are in the lead in cleaning up emissions still beating themselves up trying to make emissions even lower at great personal cost, instead of putting serious pressure on those countries who have not yet caught up to fix their issues, and fix the horrid emissions from sea-going vessels?
where is common sense...
Perhaps Because you can only change yourself not someone else esp. not with pressure.
It should be their decision, the best one can do is organize treaties and give the good example.
Also look at the washmachine youtube video often quoted on this forum, who are we to say they can't have a washing machine?
Ships and airplanes are riddles to me to , they don't pay tax on their fuel so it looks like all countries are doing nothing about it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: innkeeper on June 26, 2018, 07:42:30 pm
@Kjelt
point taken.

but still, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, a point at which the remaining pollution from those who are not cooperating far exceeds any significant further impact you can make but further restricting your own emissions.

I'm not saying to stop the advancements. but its silly to self-impose economic hardships to not do so when there are much larger pollution contributors that could be dealt with globally.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 26, 2018, 07:59:31 pm
Quote
so no worries here
Yeah.
People living downstream huge water dams also say they don't worry.
It's always properly maintained, no worries.
Perhaps you should visit the Netherlands and study how the infrastructure of dams and canals are organised. 4 centuries of development went into that. Rising sea levels are going to create a lot of jobs in the NL.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on June 26, 2018, 08:12:23 pm
For the climate change CO2 is the main factor. Short term methane is also a factor - way more effect per volume, but it does not last that long. For the greenhouse effect water is also important, but water is essentially in it's natural concentration and is only effected indirectly, mainly via temperature.  Other pollutants (e.g. NOx, CO, SO2) are more short term and more local.

SO2 is actually counteracting global warming, but only on a short time scale. So no reason to complain about China and India emitting so much SO2 - it kills there trees and makes them sick. This also a reason why China is doing a lot to make at least their coal cleaner.

When is comes to CO2 emissions China is doing a lot - though still at a rather low level of emission per capita. The emissions are still going up with economic growth, but rather slow and chances are they will go down.  China also did a great job in limiting the population growth.  I think limiting population growth is also important - not just in the 3rd world but also in the US, south America and the middle east.

It is a problem that the US is currently ignoring global warming, but chances are they will change there mind if the effects gets more obvious and international pressure will rise.  However the problem is that adapting late will be really hard - up to the point of a total economic disaster. There is a chance in adapting early as this would help your economy to be ahead. So the restrictions may not be such a bad economic idea, more like an investment in future technology.

No tax on air- and marine- fuel is due to old international treaties. A logical point would be to change this, but this is slow.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on June 26, 2018, 08:24:41 pm
It makes me cringe when I hear normal people say that the solution for a technical problem is moar taxes. I can understand the establishment saying that.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 26, 2018, 09:32:33 pm
but still, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, a point at which the remaining pollution from those who are not cooperating far exceeds any significant further impact you can make but further restricting your own emissions.

I'm not saying to stop the advancements. but its silly to self-impose economic hardships to not do so when there are much larger pollution contributors that could be dealt with globally.
Yes I agree that it can not only be done by one quarter of the countries while the rest get free play.
But remember that the situation we are now in was caused by our wealthy nations and not the new countries. We got wealthy because we ignored the environment. I remember well that in the 50s and 60s the chemical companies were dumping their toxic waste in the rivers and sea. The Rhine was completely dead, no fish no plant due to the german Ruhr gebiet dumping. Now there are fish and plants and humans are allowed to swim again except for the heavy currents. So you can also say why do our industries now clean up their waste since it costs a lot of money? Be ause we had a problem with it ourselves! Now the CO2 is no different except it is not a local river it is a global space. We put so much CO2 in it the last decades we owe it to the other nations to start reducing it, but that is just my opinion.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 26, 2018, 09:35:30 pm
Lets try to keep a functioning civilization in the process. Technology caused it and technology will have to solve it ... a country with a collapsed economy doesn't do much R&D.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 26, 2018, 10:47:25 pm
PS. hope the Dutch here have a good grasp of German ... that's where all our industry is going to go.

Yeah: this is where most of Europe's industry has gone already anyway.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: schmitt trigger on June 27, 2018, 12:46:55 am
Quote
so no worries here
Yeah.
People living downstream huge water dams also say they don't worry.
It's always properly maintained, no worries.
Perhaps you should visit the Netherlands and study how the infrastructure of dams and canals are organised. 4 centuries of development went into that. Rising sea levels are going to create a lot of jobs in the NL.

And not only for Dutch projects, but for cities World wide.

The Dutch have amassed an impressive amount of experience and technology which they will be able to sell to New York, Shanghai, Singapore, Dubai, Miami et al.

Good paying jobs ahead!
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 27, 2018, 06:30:34 am
PS. hope the Dutch here have a good grasp of German ... that's where all our industry is going to go.
Yeah: this is where most of Europe's industry has gone already anyway.
Perhaps because we in NL and DE didn't have (or hardly) wage rises the last 7 years and we already passed legislation to retire at 67-68 while the french are still striking to retire at 55-60. Not that we are happy with it but we see the necessity. The result is that finally now our economy is growing again.  You're country has some really great industries with a lot of potential profit but should make the transition to the 21st century today rather than tomorrow. Not nice to hear and Macron is doing his best but if the people don't change their mindset they mess it up for next generations.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on June 27, 2018, 08:47:50 am
Quote
we already passed legislation to retire at 67-68 while the french are still striking to retire at 55-60. Not that we are happy with it but we see the necessity
Nope.
Exponentially growing automation means less need for workers in general.
This means that the smaller amount of work needs to be redistributed between people, which means we have to reduce the work time very soon.
Bullshit jobs will also be phased out at some point.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 27, 2018, 08:52:14 am
I suspect that the powers that be are against this as the peace of the masses is founded on servitude and distraction. Can't have lots of people unoccupied, no longer struggling to survive or things will turn to shit pretty quickly when they start thinking about the raw deal they got. Hence the economic focus on total employment.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 27, 2018, 08:59:59 am
Quote
we already passed legislation to retire at 67-68 while the french are still striking to retire at 55-60. Not that we are happy with it but we see the necessity
Nope.
Exponentially growing automation means less need for workers in general.
This means that the smaller amount of work needs to be redistributed between people, which means we have to reduce the work time very soon.
Bullshit jobs will also be phased out at some point.
In some time in the future that might be true , too far automating things like Tesla proofed last year can still be a huge problem. You have to act on the numbers from the present and near future in order to steer your country not on an expected future that might never happen.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 27, 2018, 10:03:44 am
Competing on entitlements is really just a form of beggar thy neighbour competition in the EU. For a country like say Japan, the level of welfare is a sovereign decision. It doesn't determine their competitiveness, it determines their productiveness and how the wealth created is distributed. Their high level of cultural autonomy also protects them from brain drain.

For countries in the EU, brain/labour drain and welfare tourism are massive problems. We don't have the freedom to determine our welfare system, we can only race to the bottom ... assuming the EU survives and the resulting collapse of welfare systems don't cause revolutions. EU should never have expanded beyond countries which can afford the same minimum wage, at last not with free movement of labour.

Then again, the EU was always designed to grind down the nations of Europe into an indistinguishable mess no longer capable of starting world wars. So judging it by its ability to maintain socialist principles might not be fair.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: ebastler on June 27, 2018, 11:33:24 am
Jeez... Chemtrails, anyone?  ???
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 27, 2018, 11:38:39 am
Quote
we already passed legislation to retire at 67-68 while the french are still striking to retire at 55-60. Not that we are happy with it but we see the necessity
Nope.
Exponentially growing automation means less need for workers in general.
This means that the smaller amount of work needs to be redistributed between people, which means we have to reduce the work time very soon.
No. Jobs just change. Someone needs to design, program, build and maintain those robots. It does take a better educated work force so education is key to survive. Needing less people to do more creates more income.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 27, 2018, 12:07:26 pm
Jeez... Chemtrails, anyone?  ???

Stating that part of the reason the EU was founded was peace is not controversial, it's a common opinion (https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2017/11/12/the-eu-was-started-for-peace/). Increased interconnection through freedom of movement of labour was part of that ... which inevitably causes homogenization. I merely use tendentious terms to describe the process from my perspective, they mean the same thing as the standard feel good terms, they just convey a different emotion.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 27, 2018, 12:54:28 pm
Jeez... Chemtrails, anyone?  ???
Stating that part of the reason the EU was founded was peace is not controversial, it's a common opinion (https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2017/11/12/the-eu-was-started-for-peace/). Increased interconnection through freedom of movement of labour was part of that ... which inevitably causes homogenization. I merely use tendentious terms to describe the process from my perspective, they mean the same thing as the standard feel good terms, they just convey a different emotion.
The 'lesser' developed European countries are necessary for cheap labour and manufacturing. Be happy they are inside the EU!
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 27, 2018, 01:01:41 pm
Yes and no. We hire some software devs from out that way and pay Western Europe salaries. Why do we hire them? Because they're better than local grads are.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Red Squirrel on June 27, 2018, 02:18:44 pm
Reminds me of when our premier Kathleen Wynne years back looked into banning natural gas here in Ontario.  Easy for her to say from a building in middle of Toronto where they hardly even see Winter.  >:(  Hydro prices keep going up like crazy here so heating with hydro would be unfeasible.  I'm all for reducing carbon, but the way governments go about it is wrong. Instead of making carbon based energy more expensive or banning it, they need to make the alternatives cheaper and more accessible.

Cars are a good start.  Make electric cars more standard instead of a niche thing.  I would like to be able to find an electric car on the used market for <$5k but that's not going to happen when even new ones are rarely sold.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 27, 2018, 03:07:14 pm
The 'lesser' developed European countries are necessary for cheap labour and manufacturing. Be happy they are inside the EU!

If they were in a customs union we could have just outsourced there.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: NorthGuy on June 27, 2018, 06:56:51 pm
I'm all for reducing carbon, but the way governments go about it is wrong.

You don't say. It's even worse here.

I'm off grid and 80% of my electric power comes from solar. The remaining 20% comes from natural gas generator and I have to pay carbon tax on the gas used for that purpose.

Most of the population get 99% of their energy from burning the same natural gas in big plants. They don't pay carbon tax. Instead, they get subsidies from the Alberta government to alleviate high cost of electricity.

Governments are not after reducing carbon. They only care about votes.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 28, 2018, 12:15:13 am
Governments are not after reducing carbon. They only care about votes.

Votes and taxes.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 28, 2018, 08:08:15 am
Yesterday the bill was presented to the press and it is not so shocking as presented here.
It is merely a statement of intent without any clause where the government could be helt accountable if it is not going to succeed and not even the intermediate targets are stated.
So if we do nothing till 2049 and everything in the last year it is still ok.
Ofcourse we are going to start but all the panic is just media hype as can be expected in what we call here the cucumber period ( a period where there is little shocking news and the media is blowing up the little things to attract readers)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on June 28, 2018, 12:11:25 pm
I've covered a lot of these issues on our website (http://iwr.im), along with some in-depth science. However, to recap:

The original land temperature records for the USA show that the 1930's were warmer that the present decade. (Yeah, I didn't believe that when I saw it, but I've plotted the genuine data and it IS true.) Evidence of tampering with historical data is now emerging for some other regions. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, but it's kinda looking bad for the alarmists.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas but its effect is logarithmic, and once beyond 40ppm further increases have only small effects. This is why you would not expect the industrial era increase to cause much warming. 

The statement that 'Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas' is complete BS. Its effect is tiny. 

(You can check all of this with the online MODTRAN (http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/))

The IPCC claims that the effect of CO2 will be amplified by 'feedbacks' - but you can't have controlled amplification by a positive feedback loop whose output is directly connected to the input. (Both are air temperature.)   

Sea levels are indeed rising, but at 3mm per year, and they've been doing that since before the industrial era. Furthermore you can't have greater sea level rise in one place than in another on the same land mass. 

The sea is alkaline, and when you add a small amount of acid to an alkali you reduce the corrosiveness of the solution. Not, increase. School chemistry 101.

Even Wikipedia, that bastion of climate hysteria, states that severe weather events were stronger and more common in the 1930's than today. (The apparent higher cost of storm damage today stems from large numbers of flimsy buildings being put up in hurricane allleys)

The Greens are fanatically against shale gas, but want to do geothermal energy. Which uses the identical fracking process they say will cause disasters.

Meanwhile, climate change mitigation activities cost the world around $1.5 trillion US Dollars a year. The effectiveness so far has been ... NIL. CO2 is still increasing at the same rate as before it all started. When you think about the colossal amount of money involved, more than the GDP of many countries, what other things could have been done with this money that would have actually benefitted humanty, or the planet? 

That, and Greenpeace want to stop fusion research. I think we can see why. Considering that it would only cost five days' worth of global climate expenditure to complete ITER, it must worry them that it could put an stop to all of this. 
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 28, 2018, 12:29:16 pm
Okay, so it's only fairy tales by 2030 instead of suicide. It's still deplorable that government gets together for a big game of pretend.

The complete stop of CO2 emissions by 2050 are going to have fairly immediate repercussions though AFAICS. The economic life of generating plants means we can't really build any new ones. So we'll have to start importing a lot more electricity.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 28, 2018, 12:40:53 pm
We need a new big nuclear powerplant, but we don't have any big enough location for it.
Second if I was in govt I would immediately stop expanding the nr of flights from the airports, they keep on growing because it doesn't count as CO2 pollution on our books  :palm:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on June 28, 2018, 12:49:39 pm
That would do nothing but fuck a little with peons and hurt our economy. The peons would simply go to a non peon fucking neighbour to get on a flight, emitting more CO2 in the process ...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 28, 2018, 01:41:07 pm
The 'lesser' developed European countries are necessary for cheap labour and manufacturing. Be happy they are inside the EU!

If they were in a customs union we could have just outsourced there.

Not even needed. Western developed countries have been outsourcing an enormous chunk of industrial and even intellectual activities to China, India and a lot of developing countries. Don't think we have waited for them to be in the EU. :popcorn:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 28, 2018, 02:44:25 pm
Quote
we already passed legislation to retire at 67-68 while the french are still striking to retire at 55-60. Not that we are happy with it but we see the necessity
Nope.
Exponentially growing automation means less need for workers in general.
This means that the smaller amount of work needs to be redistributed between people, which means we have to reduce the work time very soon.
Bullshit jobs will also be phased out at some point.

The continuous trend has been to optimize businesses, thus needing less people and less means in general for the same amount of work, which makes perfect sense in terms of efficiency alone. Work automation has been a continuous trend as well in the history of mankind and is indeed showing signs of extreme acceleration.

The only way we can have more jobs available is thus to create proportionally A LOT more businesses and/or make them grow a lot faster. *This* is already a lot more dubious in the mid- to long-term. There is no consistent reason as of now to think that the ever increasing economic activity that proponents of the infinite growth believe in will compensate for the loss of jobs. As with most economic matters, we just don't have a clue, but current trends kind of fail to show that it's going to really work out this way.

For the record, caricatural statements are fun but we need to get real. Nobody is expecting nor striking to retire at 55, except maybe for a few specific jobs for which there can be debate indeed, such as train drivers and commercial plane pilots. This may seem unfair by today's standards to everyone else, but it really concerns only a very tiny portion of the active population (and thus has virtually no real impact) and frankly, as a passenger, I would be a bit nervous being in a train or plane driven by a 70+-year old. Just a thought. Besides, here, most train drivers don't retire at 55 anyway because even if it's still legally possible (it's actually over since the new agreements have been signed a couple days ago), most of them wouldn't get their complete retirement wage at this age. So most already don't retire this early, unless they are gently pushed out by their management willing to refresh the workers pool. Just an aside to instill a bit of reality. Again those seemingly priviledges may look out of place nowadays but I highly doubt removing them will solve anything. And as the age at which people start working is constantly increasing, a lot of people here in their 30's won't be able to retire before 67 or 68 anyway (and probably 70+ by the time they reach this age). The main problem of France IMO is that it's a gigantic tax monster that keeps businesses from growing and keeps most people from empowering themselves while pretending to help them (which kind of works by maintaining them in dependency).

Our retirement systems in Europe (and in most developed countries) are screwed up in many ways, this I agree with. Obviously they were built to work only for a generation or two post-WWII. And this is what has happened. After just one generation, they were already showing signs of weakness, and after the second, they have become almost unmanageable. But I'm not really sure having a lot more people on the job market will make the economy grow substantially enough to absorb this. It's very difficult to predict. I suggest looking at the current unemployment rate of the 55-64 people in EU alone. Some may believe that cutting retirement costs will make the overall economy grow so much that the unemployment rate will plummet even for older people, but it's wishful thinking. Young people will still have more energy and cost a lot less than old ones, so it's kind of hard to predict the difference in employment rate will tend to zero. Is it better to have a bunch of old people that are retired or have them unemployed and needing social welfare? Tough call.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. All of this to say that differences in competitiveness have more causes and implications than just the cost of labor. To get back to the german example, the cost of labor there is very significantly higher than the EU average (approx +30%) (even though it's indeed lower than France's by about 10%). There are obviously many other factors.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on June 28, 2018, 05:22:43 pm
We need a new big nuclear powerplant, but we don't have any big enough location for it.

I think we should push ahead with fusion, and with thorium LFTR as a fallback.

That will silence the alarmists and give us the means to move on with technology. Instead of having to put the clock back a couple of hundred years.

Just read that Mumbai has introduced prison sentences for carrying plastic bags. No, not for littering the place with them, just for having them.  :wtf:
I thought the plastic bag charge was a good idea since it promotes reuse, but now I'm not so sure. It may have been the small end of the wedge for something far more totalitarian. Beware the watermelons- Green on the outside, Marxist Red on the inside.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Gyro on June 28, 2018, 06:17:32 pm
Quote
£1.3bn Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project thrown out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44589083 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44589083)

We have some of the highest tidal ranges in the world and we can't even overcome government apathy to go ahead with a pilot project!  :palm:

No worries about the vagaries of sun and wind, it happens twice a day, every day and can be accurately predicted in time and level for hundreds of years.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on June 28, 2018, 06:50:22 pm
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an economic proposition.

The government seem to have gotten a bit wiser about such things (thankfully, at last) and check the facts these days before they subsidise.
 
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Gyro on June 28, 2018, 07:03:00 pm
Sure but you've got to start somewhere, cost goes down with scale.

Just imagine the moving mass of water in the Severn Estuary [Edit: 15metre tidal range, second only to the Bay of Fundy in Canada. :o]  We should at least be 'prototyping' on a realistic scale before going for a big one.

I'd prefer to see something renewable and sustainable like that than paying the large premium to EDF and the Chinese for power from the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station forever more. How many more are we going to 'rent'.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Nauris on June 28, 2018, 07:15:05 pm

It is a problem that the US is currently ignoring global warming, but chances are they will change there mind if the effects gets more obvious and international pressure will rise.  However the problem is that adapting late will be really hard - up to the point of a total economic disaster. There is a chance in adapting early as this would help your economy to be ahead. So the restrictions may not be such a bad economic idea, more like an investment in future technology.

But isn't late adapting the most economically viable way of adapting?

Like for example in Germany you have been building wind turbines since '80 at least. First small ones of 10's of kW size then 100' s kW and progressively bigger ones as you have gained more experience.
Vast amounts of money were used in research and development, even bigger amounts in building wind turbines that were bleeding edge technology when they were build but now superceded by more modern and economical ones.

Many turbines had to be scrapped or expensively repaired early in life because of unforeseen technical problems. Big manufacturing facilities had to be built, soon to be replaced by even bigger ones. Someones even tried to put them in sea in hope of higher winds at even greater expense.

But that was back then.

If we were to begin adopting wind turbines now, we would just get a turnkey project of 5 MW on-shore turbines at 7.5 M€ each from SiemensGamesa. All the bells and whistles included, erected in few months, pretty much guaranteed to be operational for decades to come. No fuss, no suprises, no R&D, just works.

Pretty much what happened here when they started building wind turbines about five years ago. If you are the late adopter, you can just buy the working solution.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 28, 2018, 07:45:35 pm
Quote
£1.3bn Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project thrown out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44589083 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44589083)

We have some of the highest tidal ranges in the world and we can't even overcome government apathy to go ahead with a pilot project!  :palm:

No worries about the vagaries of sun and wind, it happens twice a day, every day and can be accurately predicted in time and level for hundreds of years.
Not just that but put wind mills along the edge to pump extra water in the lagoon and/or use electric pumps. If you count in the use for energy storage then the numbers look completely different.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Gyro on June 28, 2018, 08:16:48 pm
Someone's going to end up as the go-to solution for tidal installations, just like Nauris mentioned for wind turbines. I'll lay odds that is won't be us though!  |O

I think you've got a fighting chance though - you've got a lot of the infrastructure already, even if you don't necessarily have the tidal range.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on June 28, 2018, 08:18:46 pm
Okay, so it's only fairy tales by 2030 instead of suicide. It's still deplorable that government gets together for a big game of pretend.
It deplorable that collectively they haven't seen through this charade and instead been 'sold a pup'.
How the masses interpret/swallow all this is the interesting bit and what they they each endeavor to do to 'do their bit' to counteract 'climate change'.
I giggle at the ones on good salaries for example, airline pilots driving around in e-cars while they each burn tonnes of jet fuel every day !  :-DD
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on June 28, 2018, 09:03:40 pm

It is a problem that the US is currently ignoring global warming, but chances are they will change there mind if the effects gets more obvious and international pressure will rise.  However the problem is that adapting late will be really hard - up to the point of a total economic disaster. There is a chance in adapting early as this would help your economy to be ahead. So the restrictions may not be such a bad economic idea, more like an investment in future technology.

But isn't late adapting the most economically viable way of adapting?

Like for example in Germany you have been building wind turbines since '80 at least. ts in building wind turbines that were bleeding edge
 .....
If we were to begin adopting wind turbines now, we would just get a turnkey project of 5 MW on-shore turbines at 7.5 M€ each from SiemensGamesa. All the bells and whistles included, erected in few months, pretty much guaranteed to be operational for decades to come. No fuss, no suprises, no R&D, just works.

Pretty much what happened here when they started building wind turbines about five years ago. If you are the late adopter, you can just buy the working solution.

We paid quite a bit for the early wind turbines, but this helped that German companies are now at least among the big players. Chances are the early adapters are also those who get the leading technology.  It did work out well for wind power in Germany - it did not work out for solar however, as China spend even more money and has better conditions.

There is some risk in adapting early, but there is also a big risk in adapting late, as the changes get very rapid than and much of the investments are usually long term. So late adapters would have old technology to shut down early.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 29, 2018, 08:04:06 am
Okay, so it's only fairy tales by 2030 instead of suicide. It's still deplorable that government gets together for a big game of pretend.
It deplorable that collectively they haven't seen through this charade and instead been 'sold a pup'.
How the masses interpret/swallow all this is the interesting bit and what they they each endeavor to do to 'do their bit' to counteract 'climate change'.
I giggle at the ones on good salaries for example, airline pilots driving around in e-cars while they each burn tonnes of jet fuel every day !  :-DD
Well per person a jet is more fuel efficient than a car. Just look at the shape of an airplane and you'll see why.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 29, 2018, 08:28:24 am
Well per person a jet is more fuel efficient than a car. Just look at the shape of an airplane and you'll see why.
Only with a 50% full so half full booked plane or better  ;)
Only exception was the concorde, also a very airodynamic shape but with over 16l/100km per seat fully booked not really economic.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 29, 2018, 08:35:57 am
Well per person a jet is more fuel efficient than a car. Just look at the shape of an airplane and you'll see why.
Only with a 50% full so half full booked plane or better  ;)
Only exception was the concorde, also a very airodynamic shape but with over 16l/100km per seat fully booked not really economic.

Still likely less nasty than:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 29, 2018, 08:52:30 am
 :-DD
Everywhere on earth within an hour, yeah right.

I flew yesterday, checkin required to arrive two hours early:
Checkin, luggage checkin, customs, wait, boarding at gate entering plane: 2 hours 15 minutes

Flight took 3 hours 15 minutes

Checkout wait for luggage to arrive, bags, customs, airport:  1 hour

So efficiency 50%  wait time and protocol total three hours, flight time three hours total 6 hours.


Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 29, 2018, 08:55:17 am
Ignoring the being blown up, having to deal with zero G vomit and then drowning in the sea after it missed the pad of course...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 29, 2018, 09:25:54 am
:-DD
Everywhere on earth within an hour, yeah right.

I flew yesterday, checkin required to arrive two hours early:
Checkin, luggage checkin, customs, wait, boarding at gate entering plane: 2 hours 15 minutes

Flight took 3 hours 15 minutes

Checkout wait for luggage to arrive, bags, customs, airport:  1 hour

So efficiency 50%  wait time and protocol total three hours, flight time three hours total 6 hours.
Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on June 29, 2018, 09:31:45 am
I haven't found it any different to the 1990s. There's smartphones now though which gives you something to do while you're trying to sleep on the airport floor because you missed your connecting flight because someone had gone mental in the first one and they had to delay take off by 2 hours to lever him out of the toilet (this actually happened) :-DD
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on June 29, 2018, 02:43:45 pm
Is Boeing not developing some kind of 5 times the soundbarrier plane for 2040 or so?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on June 29, 2018, 08:36:22 pm
Is Boeing not developing some kind of 5 times the soundbarrier plane
Nope.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on June 29, 2018, 09:47:58 pm
Kjelt is probably talking about this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51_Waverider

Boeing is definitely working on applications for this, but what exactly...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on June 29, 2018, 09:53:01 pm
Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.

No, I'd say it's giving the Neocon's justification to waste at least $5 Trillion dollars and many thousands of lives on destructive and pointless wars in 5 countries, hastening the decline of the American empire.  IMHO of course...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on June 29, 2018, 11:17:05 pm
Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.

No, I'd say it's giving the Neocon's justification to waste at least $5 Trillion dollars and many thousands of lives on destructive and pointless wars in 5 countries, hastening the decline of the American empire.  IMHO of course...
But that doesn't bother me at all. Trump is doing an excellent job by detaching the USA economy from the rest of the world so the USA can go under without causing trouble for the rest.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on June 29, 2018, 11:47:11 pm
Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.

No, I'd say it's giving the Neocon's justification to waste at least $5 Trillion dollars and many thousands of lives on destructive and pointless wars in 5 countries, hastening the decline of the American empire.  IMHO of course...
But that doesn't bother me at all. Trump is doing an excellent job by detaching the USA economy from the rest of the world so the USA can go under without causing trouble for the rest.

Well the demise of the US empire was (is) inevitable.

But the needless suffering and loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the squandering of US taxpayer money that could be used to do good things are highly regrettable and bother me greatly.

It would be nice to think the evaporation of the US empire will proceed peacefully and not cause trouble for others - but history says that is unlikely.  Trump is a symptom, not the disease.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on July 01, 2018, 12:04:25 pm
Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.
Which is the objective of terrorism:
Answers on an Arabic 727 flight manual to a cave in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Harb on July 01, 2018, 12:09:06 pm
Energy is the basis of every type of success a country can have, and there is only one way to go........Thorium based molten salt reactors......and the sooner we start accepting that and start to build them, the sooner we will get past this major stumbling block we have built ourselves...........Here in Australia we are in probably the best position to exploit this, and yet we dance around jumping at shadows.........just stupid.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on July 01, 2018, 03:09:39 pm
I disagree, too many known unknowns. Lead cooled fast reactor is much more realistic, breeder reactors won't run out of Uranium any time soon. If you're going to go breeder, just forget about the Thorium. It's a distraction. Molten salt reactors are for dreamers, liquid sodium is for pyromaniacs.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Jan Finkel on July 02, 2018, 09:59:27 am
Agree, sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors are the future of the energy producing. Stil there are only few builded and still in operation and they are all in Russia, Beloyarsk afaik.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on July 05, 2018, 11:03:44 pm
Quote
Thorium based molten salt reactors..
Yeah. Dangerous as hell.
Obsolete.
Won't happen.

Quote
Here in Australia we are in probably the best position to exploit this
You probably meant PV. Australia is probably in one of the best position to exploit PV.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on July 06, 2018, 12:26:53 am
Quote
Thorium based molten salt reactors..
Yeah. Dangerous as hell.
Obsolete.

There's one reason to build a couple fast reactors at least, to get rid of the existing waste. We don't even have certified long term storage solutions for contemporary high burn up fuel ... that shit's nasty.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on July 07, 2018, 10:31:47 pm
With only one or two exceptions all the major nuclear accidents have been due to chemical or physical processes getting out of hand, not the nuclear fuel itself. Pressurised water, zirconium (flashbulb metal) fuel cladding, liquid sodium.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on July 07, 2018, 10:51:22 pm
Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.


This is something that has bothered me all along. Al Quaida unequivocally won, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in causing tremendous disruption, fear, and an overall great reduction in our personal freedoms. The few thousand people killed on 9/11 were but a drop in the proverbial bucket. The buildings and airplanes can be replaced, the economic cost directly from the attack was minimal in the grand scheme of things.

The freedom is gone forever, the disruption and inconvenience will have lasting costs through the foreseeable future, the changes referred to as the "post-9/11 world" are permanent and the costs of the resulting wars in both money and lives absolutely dwarfs the attack. Yet people seem completely blind to this and absolutely oblivious to the fact that the only effective fight against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized and continue on with life as usual. Ignore the bully and eventually they will give up, because a fight is precisely what they want.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on July 11, 2018, 09:07:38 am
There certainly seems to have been a change in the response to terrorism in the last two decades. Back in the era of the Irish Troubles the UK suffered more terrorism than now, but it didn't stop any vital services from functioning, at least not for any longer than it took to clean up from an incident. The security services were there, but they worked low-profile, doing their job silently and efficiently without creating undue public anxiety.

One factor we need to be cautious of is that a whole high-profile security industry has sprung up around counter-terrorism, and that it now benefits that industry to spread FUD so as to sell their products and services. 
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on July 11, 2018, 09:54:29 am
Quote
Thorium based molten salt reactors..
Yeah. Dangerous as hell.
Obsolete.

There's one reason to build a couple fast reactors at least, to get rid of the existing waste. We don't even have certified long term storage solutions for contemporary high burn up fuel ... that shit's nasty.

A fast reactor to reduce the existing waste might be an option - but an expensive one and only a partial solution. It would only reduce the long term radio toxicity by some amount not getting away with all of it. It also still needs lots of development and certification. So far the fast reactors are not so well behaving. New fuels need special test before - so you can't just dump any junk inside - every fuel type needs testing and certification. It also needs chemical processing before some of the trans-uranium elements could be burned off. That chemical part is kind of dirty, producing large volumes of contaminated materials. However there seem to be already a significant supply of already separated reactor grade plutonium they could get essentially for free.

With a limited amount of wast from the existing reactors it may not be worth developing it. 
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Terry01 on July 23, 2018, 10:16:20 am
There certainly seems to have been a change in the response to terrorism in the last two decades. Back in the era of the Irish Troubles the UK suffered more terrorism than now, but it didn't stop any vital services from functioning, at least not for any longer than it took to clean up from an incident. The security services were there, but they worked low-profile, doing their job silently and efficiently without creating undue public anxiety.

One factor we need to be cautious of is that a whole high-profile security industry has sprung up around counter-terrorism, and that it now benefits that industry to spread FUD so as to sell their products and services.


.....and remember too now you have the PC brigade to make sure no one upsets the terrorists while they go about their "buisiness" then someone to make sure no one upsets the PC brigade while they make sure no one upsets the terrorists then someone to make sure.......you get where this is going...oh and don't forget someone will need paying for all this and i wonder who will foot the bill....

That's a whole other story my friend!  :wtf:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: peteb2 on August 18, 2018, 01:04:02 am
At least in wee New Zealand, in the city i live at least i can still heat my home with a wood burner but i worry for how long. The city council we have has a wonderful way of making living in this city as horrible as possible with its current subterfuge of forcing people out of their cars onto a useless unreliable virtually non-existent public transport. Techniques like removing car parking completely to increasing petrol by 11.5cents (promising the money will only be used to better the public transport system but in actual fact spending the vast chiunks on ridiculous quarter million dollar expensive art installations that break the next day and need further funding to be repaired).

The other hilarity is that the country earns most of its nations income from the Farming Sector. Presently that's dairy as in 100s of thousands of cows being milked. Sadly in the same breathe with with our stupid MMP System of Government meaning political parties than weren't even voted for ending up running the country (with zero clue) we've the likes of the Green Party demanding a stop to things like the farming cows because they belch out too much methane....

Add to the Party's deluded demand on "CLEAN ENERGY" windfarm construction, solar highways (i kid you not) and electric cars.... while being completely ignorant to the fact the core materials used in such mechanisms are expensive and have affected the environment some other place on the planet... (think about the mining and refining of copper as example).

And a funny thing about my neighbour whose lectured me on the wood burner being bad for pollution, his two year old heat-pump heat exchange unit originally placed near the fence close to the lounge of my properly is already on a death spiral. The piece of junk makes an awful constant loud thump, thump, thump probably worn out bearing set in the compressor motor. Neighbour says it isn't making enough heat now and will replace it soon....

Sometimes i wonder if the powers that be really have the proper facts when it comes to what energy generation forms we can use...

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on August 18, 2018, 01:53:45 am
They can get five times more selling natural gas in Asia than they now sell it for in the US. There is an almost limitless desire for it there. Its probably three times more than they can get in the EU. Can you blame them for wanting to sell it there?

----

re 'post 9-11 world'  Ha!

The changes we are seeing are a delayed reaction by TPTB to the gains of the 20th century. They are all getting together and pushing back.

They're united now, against the normal folk.

They're just pretending to argue.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on August 18, 2018, 03:42:23 am
And a funny thing about my neighbour whose lectured me on the wood burner being bad for pollution, his two year old heat-pump heat exchange unit originally placed near the fence close to the lounge of my properly is already on a death spiral. The piece of junk makes an awful constant loud thump, thump, thump probably worn out bearing set in the compressor motor. Neighbour says it isn't making enough heat now and will replace it soon....

Without actually hearing the sound I can't say for sure, but from the description it sounds like a bent or unbalanced fan in the outdoor unit. Compressors can fail but that's fairly rare and is usually catastrophic. My heat pump is 12 years old and still going strong, the one I installed in my mother's place is about the same age. Recently replaced the motor run capacitor in mine but otherwise it has been very dependable.

I still like my wood stove too, but the heat pump is nice, mostly for the air conditioning in the summer.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on August 18, 2018, 03:53:28 am
You should follow our solution
Granted, the UK economic suicide solution is quite effective.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on August 18, 2018, 11:16:48 am
The piece of junk makes an awful constant loud thump, thump, thump probably worn out bearing set in the compressor motor. Neighbour says it isn't making enough heat now and will replace it soon....

Just don't buy one from shortlived companies with shit warranty, caveat emptor. No HVAC company with history can survive with compressors which can't go the distance.

While short lived machinery is bad for the environment on a global scale, at least on a local scale it still won't fuck your kids lungs. Old fashioned wood burning stoves are the bunker oil of heating, you can build decent ones ... most of the existing ones aren't. An entire village with open fireplaces in winter with a lack of wind and you get Bejing quality air.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on August 18, 2018, 05:56:15 pm
At least out here the regulations on efficiency and whatnot are such that there are only so many corners that can be cut and even the lower end equipment is mostly ok. As long as you get something that has a Copeland or other reputable brand of compressor it will usually hold up pretty well.

Properly used, wood is a reasonable source of heat. It's a renewable resource that is carbon neutral and good seasoned firewood burns pretty clean in a modern sealed wood stove. The nasty smoke often associated with fireplaces is often due to burning green wood, scraps of lumber that are painted or treated, or other random garbage. A lot of people simply don't know any better.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on August 20, 2018, 08:32:38 am
Properly used, wood is a reasonable source of heat. It's a renewable resource that is carbon neutral and good seasoned firewood burns pretty clean in a modern sealed wood stove. The nasty smoke often associated with fireplaces is often due to burning green wood, scraps of lumber that are painted or treated, or other random garbage. A lot of people simply don't know any better.
This. Proper insulation, 2-way ventilation, and wood burning efficient modern heating is one obviously top way to go. Works well for me, and energy costs and environment footprint are much reduced compared to electric heat pump based alternatives.

A simple and easy calculation :
- Electric plant burns coal* (Or Uranium for that matter) : 40% efficiency
- Grid : 90% efficient
- Heat pump : 250% efficient (peak is better, but average over the winter is not as good as the advertised 400% peak efficiency)
----> Total : 90% efficiency

vs :
- you burn coal, or gazoil directly at home : 90% efficient as well

So using a heat pump is environmentally roughly equivalent to burning coal or gazoil at home, unfortunately.



* in Europe, using much electricity at the yearly heating peak of the winter is getting a lot of coal based, also in France, which doesn't have the peaking capacity, and imports massively coal based electricity from Deutschland at that period. Also, PV doesn't really bring much at that exact period, else you wouldn't need much heating, when you get sunshine inside big windows, provided you get big windows in a modern building.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on August 20, 2018, 10:11:07 am
Burning wood ?
I was in a hotel in France that burned wood for their heating and showers, they used aprox. one tree per two days.
That tree took 40-60 years to grow.
Do the math. Unless you find trees that grow substantial amounts of wood within a few years it is not a really good alternative.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on August 20, 2018, 10:26:51 am
Burning wood ?
I was in a hotel in France that burned wood for their heating and showers, they used aprox. one tree per two days.
That tree took 40-60 years to grow.
Do the math. Unless you find trees that grow substantial amounts of wood within a few years it is not a really good alternative.
Compared to coal that's still pretty good. ;D
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on August 20, 2018, 01:16:51 pm
Burning wood ?
I was in a hotel in France that burned wood for their heating and showers, they used aprox. one tree per two days.
That tree took 40-60 years to grow.
Do the math. Unless you find trees that grow substantial amounts of wood within a few years it is not a really good alternative.

I asked how much wood a grate in a country house used - because I had seen the size of the wood basket. The answer was 0.5tons per day!

The other point is that many cities in the UK are gearing up to ban domestic wood heaters (and/or closely specify what fuel can be burnt in them) due to the particulate pollution they emit. Such pollution from coal fires in the 1940s/50s caused the infamous "pea souper" fogs which killed thousands, and lead to the introduction of "smokeless coal".
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on August 20, 2018, 01:26:58 pm
The other point is that many cities in the UK are gearing up to ban domestic wood heaters (and/or closely specify what fuel can be burnt in them) due to the particulate pollution they emit. Such pollution from coal fires in the 1940s/50s caused the infamous "pea souper" fogs which killed thousands, and lead to the introduction of "smokeless coal".
And I agree fully, I hate the smoke from the fireplaces from the neighbours.
I wonder how many would buy the $4k catalysation system needed to clean the air.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on August 20, 2018, 03:27:23 pm
Burning wood ?
I was in a hotel in France that burned wood for their heating and showers, they used aprox. one tree per two days.
That tree took 40-60 years to grow.
Do the math. Unless you find trees that grow substantial amounts of wood within a few years it is not a really good alternative.

How much natural gas does it take to heat a comparable hotel and how long did that take to form?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on August 20, 2018, 04:28:19 pm
How much natural gas does it take to heat a comparable hotel and how long did that take to form?
That is also unsustainable but IMO for new energy sources we should be looking for sustainable energy sources instead of cutting down forests for short term profit and making the planet a desert.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: helius on August 20, 2018, 04:38:36 pm
Burning wood ?
I was in a hotel in France that burned wood for their heating and showers, they used aprox. one tree per two days.
That tree took 40-60 years to grow.
Do the math. Unless you find trees that grow substantial amounts of wood within a few years it is not a really good alternative.
Without reference to the size of the woodlot supporting the hotel, there is no "math".
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on August 20, 2018, 04:57:39 pm
We don't have to just clearcut forests. Out here trees are farmed, they harvest a section then plant it with new trees, then harvest another section and plant that with new trees, then after a number of cycles of that the first set of newly planted trees is ready to be harvested. There is also a great deal of wood that comes from fallen trees, and trees removed to build something where they were, or removed because they are too close to existing buildings. Old growth lumber is no longer harvested, we have lots and lots of trees out here, they are a renewable resource.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on August 20, 2018, 05:30:08 pm
Sustaining what, a couple of villages or NYC ?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on August 20, 2018, 06:19:40 pm
The National Energy Foundation in the UK says (http://www.nef.org.uk/knowledge-hub/wood-fuel-equipment/wood-fuel-frequently-asked-questions#Self-sufficient) you need about a hectare of poplar to be self-sufficient in heating. Taking that number per household you would need about the entire area of the UK to supply wood to heat UK households.

As for renewable, that depends on how much nutrients go up in smoke. Anything not retained in the ashes and which rains down into the ocean is effectively lost on a human timescale.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on August 20, 2018, 06:51:23 pm
That's why you don't put all your eggs in one basket. My wood stove is supplemental heat, I use it to heat the downstairs during the winter and on special occasions like holidays where there is nothing quite like a crackling fire to make for a cozy gathering. I also have a natural gas furnace and electric heat pump, the latter of which is used primarily for summer cooling but I can heat with it when natural gas prices are high.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on August 20, 2018, 09:58:46 pm
Quote
$4k catalysation system needed to clean the air
What do you want to catalyze?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Galenbo on August 20, 2018, 11:38:32 pm
:-DD
Everywhere on earth within an hour, yeah right.

I flew yesterday, checkin required to arrive two hours early:
Checkin, luggage checkin, customs, wait, boarding at gate entering plane: 2 hours 15 minutes

Flight took 3 hours 15 minutes

Checkout wait for luggage to arrive, bags, customs, airport:  1 hour

So efficiency 50%  wait time and protocol total three hours, flight time three hours total 6 hours.

Drive 20km to our airport adds 45 minutes, afther the flight get the booked rental car adds another 30 minutes.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Eka on September 24, 2018, 08:17:47 am
Forget wood for heating. Even when a catalytic converter is used it emits to much pollutants.

Lots of insulation, properly placed windows, with heat pumps are a better solution where heat pumps are viable. Some places are to cold like where I live. Ground sourced heat pumps are the only ones that work here. My place is well enough insulated and has enough solar gain through the windows that it only uses 300 gallons of propane a year for heating, hot water, and clothes drying. Even in the middle of the winter I often find I'm trying to get rid of heat. In a pinch I can fire up a couple gaming computers and heat this place. I need to pour the 2" thick cement slab I planned on for the main floor so it can serve as a heat sink to absorb heat from the sun then radiate it at night. The structure is designed for the weight, I just didn't put in the in the floor hot water heating system like I'd planned on initially. I should install a solar hot water heating system. It can also heat the domestic hot water and eliminate that much more propane use. BTW, daily highs often don't get above freezing in the winter, and two feet of frost will penetrate the ground, though global warming has changed that. I don't think we got more than 6" of frost these past few winters.

Yes, that is IS' and Al quaida's greatest accomplishment: make flying a long and tedious process.


This is something that has bothered me all along. Al Quaida unequivocally won, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in causing tremendous disruption, fear, and an overall great reduction in our personal freedoms. The few thousand people killed on 9/11 were but a drop in the proverbial bucket. The buildings and airplanes can be replaced, the economic cost directly from the attack was minimal in the grand scheme of things.

The freedom is gone forever, the disruption and inconvenience will have lasting costs through the foreseeable future, the changes referred to as the "post-9/11 world" are permanent and the costs of the resulting wars in both money and lives absolutely dwarfs the attack. Yet people seem completely blind to this and absolutely oblivious to the fact that the only effective fight against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized and continue on with life as usual. Ignore the bully and eventually they will give up, because a fight is precisely what they want.
Many years before the second World Trade Center attack, Osama bin Laden said he wanted to turn the west into police states like much of the Middle East were.

Just think about what those wars did for the price of oil? Lots of big profits were made. Oil prices getting low, stir up the middle east some more and ratchet up the fear. Can't ever properly solve the middle east issues because that would allow oil prices to stabilize and lower, and then the profits from oil speculation become harder to come by. Lots of profits in the military hardware sales the fear generates. Let's not forget the mercenaries too. Yet another market for them to serve. Bush II was a disaster for the stability of this world. Where Clinton reacted calmly to a big terrorist attack on US soil, Bush II fanned the flames of fear. Of course that helped him and his backers make money off of it. Reagan, and Bush I also did their damage by undoing Carter's alternative energy research, and carbon fuel use reduction initiatives. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were big oil controlled presidencies. The Bush family having made their fortunes from oil. Also many in their cabinets had significant oil industry ties. We are easily 30 years behind in carbon use reduction because of them.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: MT on September 26, 2018, 12:59:37 am
BTW, daily highs often don't get above freezing in the winter, and two feet of frost will penetrate the ground, though global warming has changed that. I don't think we got more than 6" of frost these past few winters.
Global warming caused my lawn to be deep freezed well beyond 1m last 4 seasons and almost 1.5m of snow and cold as hell for weeks! Season 5 it rained at Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&t=35s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&t=35s)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on September 26, 2018, 06:32:18 am
Global warming caused my lawn to be deep freezed well beyond 1m last 4 seasons and almost 1.5m of snow and cold as hell for weeks! Season 5 it rained at Christmas!

Conspiracy theorists love to use this silly argument, but really "global warming" would more correctly be called "global climate shift". The average temperature of the earth is indeed rising, the polar ice is melting and sea levels are rising, this is well documented and easily measured. The fact that the temperature in your tiny little corner of the earth has been lower recently says nothing to contradict this. It is only a data point that conveniently supports your existing confirmation bias.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on September 26, 2018, 01:55:02 pm
Global warming caused my lawn to be deep freezed well beyond 1m last 4 seasons and almost 1.5m of snow and cold as hell for weeks! Season 5 it rained at Christmas!
Conspiracy theorists love to use this silly argument, but really "global warming" would more correctly be called "global climate shift". The average temperature of the earth is indeed rising, the polar ice is melting and sea levels are rising, this is well documented and easily measured. The fact that the temperature in your tiny little corner of the earth has been lower recently says nothing to contradict this. It is only a data point that conveniently supports your existing confirmation bias.
It is only a single data point but I have noticed that last summer we had a lot of wind from the North. Which is nice because it was not so hot and humid as a 'regular' summer (with wind from other directions) but it seems to be an effect due to the ice melting causing wind patterns to shift.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on September 26, 2018, 04:11:20 pm
Conspiracy theorists love to use this silly argument, but really "global warming" would more correctly be called "global climate shift". The average temperature of the earth is indeed rising, the polar ice is melting and sea levels are rising, this is well documented and easily measured. The fact that the temperature in your tiny little corner of the earth has been lower recently says nothing to contradict this. It is only a data point that conveniently supports your existing confirmation bias.

The reverse is true. Too many people assume that the alarmists must be telling the truth.

Since the 2016 El Nino, global temperature has been falling. It is now almost back to the 2000-2014 plateau level.
The rapid warming in the 20thC started in 1910, which is over 30 years before the rapid increase in CO2 emissions started.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is well-established science, and the standard equations say that it cannot do what the alarmists predict.
(The alarmist predictions are based on computer models which have no basis in classical physics.)
Sea levels are indeed rising, but at less than 3mm per year. Meanwhile, UK tides are a thousand times larger, twice daily.
Also, sea levels cannot rise more in one place than in another.  If that seems to be the case, as in the oft-quoted maldives, then another mechanism is the cause of land flooding. Which indeed it is, tectonic plate movements being the cause.
Oceans are not acid, they are alkaline. A (tiny) reduction in alkalinity is not acidification.
Arctic ice - This year's minimum is now passed, and it ain't no record. 
Polar bears are doing quite well, thank you.

That's the supposed problem. Now for the proposed fix:

Expenditure on renewables is about half a trillion a year.  We've been installing them for over 20 years. All we have to show for that, is 2% of world energy, or 8% of electricity. Go figure how long achieving '100% renewables' will actually take at that rate, and how much it will cost. Now ask yourself, even if climate change is a serious problem, is this going to solve anything?

Eagles and other hawks are not doing so well. The Greens try to blame this on landowners setting poison, but it is equally possible that wind turbines are the cause. Everywhere with massed windfarms has very expensive electricity.

The Greens claim that energy storage will overcome the intermittency of renewables, but they might as well claim that flux capacitors will make time travel a cinch.  (Neither have been invented yet, and there is no certainty that either is even possible to invent.)

The UK intends to spend over a billion on the smart meter rollout. Which has been made necessary because of the shortfall in the predicted windfarm output. Another crazy waste of money that could be put towards better solutions.

In fact, every time a limitation of renewables is pointed out, there's always an 'Ah, but..' excuse.  :horse:

Even if you still think climate change is a serious problem, would we not be better trying other low-carbon energy solutions? LFTR is one which suggests itself. The cost of doing so would be peanuts by comparison to the money being wasted on wind turbines. Say $25 billion for a test reactor. Compared to twenty times that a year on birdchoppers.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: james_s on September 26, 2018, 08:33:36 pm
Oh there are "believers" on both sides of the fence, that's for sure. People whose belief is based on pure emotion rather than rational thought or data.

My own thought is that looking at the more alarmist data suggests that catastrophic effects are inevitable anyway at this point so there is little we could do now to change the course. I also think that to some degree the fossil fuel problem will solve itself, these fuels will become scarce leading to dramatic price increases making them no longer viable to use as fuel. Unfortunately with that is likely to come more wars over resources, the wars themselves consuming vast quantities of the very resources they are fought over.

Either way I would prefer a gradual shift away from fossil fuels where possible, leaving them for the applications where there is no viable alternative. We're not likely for example to see electric jumbo jets any time soon, and there are a vast range of uses for oil that do not involve burning it as fuel. Most plastic, foam, paint, adhesive, lubrication and other products come from oil, and the more oil we burn up, the less is left for other things and the higher the price. Regardless of current viability, I would like to see development of as many different energy sources as possible. Diversity is the best defense against any sort of catastrophic event. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, combustion, we can leverage them all, reducing the dependance on any one resource.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on September 26, 2018, 09:07:50 pm
Well, we can agree to differ on climate change, but also to agree that oil is an incredibly useful substance and that we need to leave some for future generations. That's why I think we should put more effort into advanced nuclear engineering. We know that safer and less polluting forms of nuclear energy are possible, and may not even be all that difficult to engineer. The factors holding us back on this are the inertia of the financial backers, who want to only build tried and tested (but unsafe and polluting) designs like the PWR.  Also, the religion-like obsession of the Greens with wind energy, in spite of its self-evident limitations.

As said we'd only need to divert a small part of the money stream out of these massive enterprises to test out a LFTR, and I think once we had one working that would be the turning point and the money would start flowing into that sector, bigtime. Once accomplished, market forces will do the rest and LFTR becomes the world standard power source, except perhaps for regions with ample hydro or geothermal resources. 

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on September 26, 2018, 09:17:02 pm
Well, we can agree to differ on climate change, but also to agree that oil is an incredibly useful substance and that we need to leave some for future generations. That's why I think we should put more effort into advanced nuclear engineering. We know that safer and less polluting forms of nuclear energy are possible, and may not even be all that difficult to engineer. The factors holding us back on this are the inertia of the financial backers, who want to only build tried and tested (but unsafe and polluting) designs like the PWR.  Also, the religion-like obsession of the Greens with wind energy, in spite of its self-evident limitations.

As said we'd only need to divert a small part of the money stream out of these massive enterprises to test out a LFTR, and I think once we had one working that would be the turning point and the money would start flowing into that sector, bigtime. Once accomplished, market forces will do the rest and LFTR becomes the world standard power source, except perhaps for regions with ample hydro or geothermal resources.
I agree that using as much renewable energy as possible is a good idea either way because fossil fuels are running out. It wouldn't surprise me that governments use climate change as a sales pitch. Nuclear is a good option but LFTR is still 30 to 40 years away from commercial deployment so we have to do with the good old Uranium reactors until then. Maybe they figure out nuclear fusion before they get LFTR up & running because LFTR has some serious challenges to overcome.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on September 28, 2018, 04:58:28 pm
Nuclear is a good option but LFTR is still 30 to 40 years away from commercial deployment
Nuclear is a very dirty and unsustainable option.
Also, 30-40 Years away  translates as "not feasible with current technology" :
https://www.xkcd.com/678/ (https://www.xkcd.com/678/)
"It has not been conclusively proven impossible" -> Only 25 Years
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on September 28, 2018, 07:04:35 pm
Nuclear is a good option but LFTR is still 30 to 40 years away from commercial deployment
Nuclear is a very dirty and unsustainable option.
Also, 30-40 Years away  translates as "not feasible with current technology" :
https://www.xkcd.com/678/ (https://www.xkcd.com/678/)
"It has not been conclusively proven impossible" -> Only 25 Years

Yes. Engineers like to talk about nuclear because on paper, it is very enticing.  But in reality, the economic and political hurdles are too great - in part due to safety and long term toxicity issues.  Because of this it is gradually fading out in the West.  In the developed West, there are and will be efforts to replace aging reactors but they are not moving fast enough to fully replace lost generating capacity. Nuclear has become a smaller portion of the total energy mix pie and this will continue - (even if total world Nuclear capacity increases due to growth in China.)

See 2018 BP Energy Outlook (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2018.pdf) and page 41 of 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/?action=dlattach;attach=534219;image)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on September 28, 2018, 07:14:39 pm
Yes. Engineers like to talk about nuclear because on paper, it is very enticing.  But in reality, the economic and political hurdles are too great - in part due to safety and long term toxicity issues.  Because of this it is gradually fading out in the West.
But it isn't. BP is simply wrong. Currently new nuclear power plants are being build across the world. In the UK alone they have planned 10 new nuclear power plants.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: ebastler on September 28, 2018, 07:41:46 pm
Nuclear is becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the total energy mix pie and this trend will continue

Not according to the chart you posted just below that sentence. It shows the nuclear share as being stable from 2015 onward.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on September 28, 2018, 07:58:45 pm
Predictions  :palm:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on September 28, 2018, 08:03:17 pm
Yes. Engineers like to talk about nuclear because on paper, it is very enticing.  But in reality, the economic and political hurdles are too great - in part due to safety and long term toxicity issues.  Because of this it is gradually fading out in the West.
But it isn't. BP is simply wrong.

Magical thinking versus facts.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on September 28, 2018, 08:05:26 pm
Predictions  :palm:

"It's difficult to make predictions. especially about the future"  ;D

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: ebastler on September 28, 2018, 08:06:54 pm
Predictions  :palm:

Yes. What other kind of data do you expect for a 2020-2040 timeframe?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on September 28, 2018, 08:09:55 pm
Nuclear is becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the total energy mix pie and this trend will continue

Not according to the chart you posted just below that sentence. It shows the nuclear share as being stable from 2015 onward.

Good point. It looks to be close. I've edited my post to more accurately reflect BPs prediction.  FWIW, I think BP is too optimistic on nuclear and my view is it will be a smaller and smaller portion as time goes on.  But as always, the future is uncertain.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on September 29, 2018, 10:47:10 am
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/?action=dlattach;attach=534219;image)

I'd bet that graph above is installed power rather than energy generated, if it is, it says nothing (useful).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on September 29, 2018, 11:33:15 am
Yes. What other kind of data do you expect for a 2020-2040 timeframe?
The data used to make the prediction.
I can draw any graph you like based on different datasets.
One must never forget the reason and facts behind the past if you use it for the future.
The near future is very very uncertain IMO esp. for energy since it depends on too many factors that are changing every quarter.

Even the OP in my country is no longer relevant since the government is divided what course to take. The original idea drawn in Q2 is not feasible and we are now in Q3.

Then BP is not an objective 3rd party in this matter so I am very suspicious of any data coming from the old fossile fuel companies.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on September 29, 2018, 11:41:50 am
Until there are billion dollar contractual obligations any nuclear plant is as sure a thing as renewable and co2 reduction targets ... which is to say it's just hot air. The way Hinkley C is going I'm not optimistic for nuclear. If that's what it costs to build nuclear plants in the UK you are better off building off shore windfarms and fossil plants for backup if CO2 reduction is the goal.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on September 29, 2018, 12:03:28 pm
Until there are billion dollar contractual obligations any nuclear plant is as sure a thing as renewable and co2 reduction targets ... which is to say it's just hot air. The way Hinkley C is going I'm not optimistic for nuclear. If that's what it costs to build nuclear plants in the UK you are better off building off shore windfarms and fossil plants for backup if CO2 reduction is the goal.
The problem with the Hinkley plant is that the UK government choose to have it funded privately at an insane interest rate which adds billions to the cost.  :palm:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: mtdoc on September 29, 2018, 01:53:14 pm
Then BP is not an objective 3rd party in this matter so I am very suspicious of any data coming from the old fossile fuel companies.

It’s true that BP is not an objective 3rd party.  However, unlike their Annual Energy Outlook, which is, after all, in part a subjective, speculative look at what the past fortells about the future, their annual Statistical Review of World Energy (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf) is considered by the energy industry to be an authoritative, objective and factual data set. It us used by energy analysts around the world, inluding BPs competitors.

What I find fascinating about their subjective predictions contained in their Energy Outlook report is that even they, as a big oil company, admit to the smaller and smaller role for oil.

For a thorough, 3rd party analysis of BPs statistical report and it’s implications, I’d recommend a look at Eight insights based on December 2017 energy data (https://ourfiniteworld.com/2018/06/22/eight-insights-based-on-december-2017-energy-data/).

From that we have this graph based on the factual historical data.

(https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/nuclear-electric-production-by-region-to-2017.png)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on September 29, 2018, 02:23:37 pm
Fun fact: the energy density (in W/cm²) of a Pentium IV is about the same as that of a nuclear reactor: ~100 W/cm²
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on October 25, 2018, 10:24:17 pm
Something to consider, volcanic eruptions drastically reduce both solar energy generation and wind, rain and snow melt. They can and do (its been recorded in the geologic and historical records) change the weather in a hemisphere (north or south) or the whole planet if the eruption is near the equator... for years. Solar, hydro, etc. would be significantly reduced for a period of time.

Also, nuclear fission is vulnerable to the loss of the ultimate heat sink problem, as well as a similar issue with spent fuel (This is what happened several times at Fukushima, illustrating just how big a problem it is with current technology.) This could become a major disaster for humanity.

Considering there is an unknown but for the sake of the argument, lets say better than one in eight chance every decade of a Carrington (1859 event) class solar storm, which could knock out the world's energy grids and cause a cascade of these nuclear meltdowns for that reason. (as if the loss of power wasnt bad enough!) So until we solve that, which is related to the problem of what to do about the spent fuel, fission is not a good option either. The danger of a solar storm followed by widespread grid failure, followed by multiple nuclear meltdowns is a serious one that we must not ignore. This is probably the most dangerous risk that nobody knows about.

Coal is also problematic because of the pollution it creates, some of which (in addition to causing a plethora of other health problems) is truly insidious in the form of elemental mercury. Mercury is present in the environment where it accumulates in trees, etc, and is liberated as mercury vapor when they burn, also tilling - as in agriculture, it turns out is now releasing quite worrisome amounts of gaseous mercury into the atmosphere. What has changed is the amounts recorded have been rising and its clearly due to the burning of lower grades of coal.

Of course this has been happening for a long time but measured amounts of mercury have been rising, and its known to cause a lot of health problem, especially in the form of methylmercury, which is a neurotoxin, but simple elemental mercury is quite dangerous too. Mining and burning of coal has drastically increased the mercury in the atmosphere and soil where it poses a hazard to people and wildlife, especially developing fetuses - its recently been discoverd that pro-oxidant substances - a great many of them are additive in this way, mercury is a strong oxidizer and it can cause birth defects at much lower levels than previously thought. At levels commonly encountered in the environment today. So burning more coal isnt a good solution either. Additionally, its recently been discovered that the supposedly clean fuel, natural gas, is contributing to the greenhouse gas effect much more than they had thought, it may be as bad as coal.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on October 25, 2018, 10:45:32 pm

Also, nuclear fission is vulnerable to the loss of the ultimate heat sink problem, as well as a similar issue with spent fuel (This is what happened several times at Fukushima, illustrating just how big a problem it is with current technology.) This could become a major disaster for humanity.

Considering there is an unknown but for the sake of the argument, lets say better than one in eight chance every decade of a Carrington (1859 event) class solar storm, which could knock out the world's energy grids and cause a cascade of these nuclear meltdowns for that reason. (as if the loss of power wasnt bad enough!) So until we solve that, which is related to the problem of what to do about the spent fuel, fission is not a good option either. The danger of a solar storm followed by widespread grid failure, followed by multiple nuclear meltdowns is a serious one that we must not ignore. This is probably the most dangerous risk that nobody knows about.

Are you not aware Fukushima suffered from the backup power supplies being taken out by the Tsunami ?
Nothing at all to do with grid failure.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on October 25, 2018, 10:46:26 pm
I don't think solar storms are expensive to defend against, there's just no economic incentive.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on October 26, 2018, 01:19:20 am
I don't get it, could you elaborate?

I don't think solar storms are expensive to defend against, there's just no economic incentive.

That doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on October 26, 2018, 01:44:05 am
Okay, "Lack of cooling ability at a critical time (https://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable-new-study-finds/)", and you notice that although four reactors were sited there the flooding was not cited as the cause of all the meltdowns, the lack of cooling ability was.


Also, nuclear fission is vulnerable to the loss of the ultimate heat sink problem, as well as a similar issue with spent fuel (This is what happened several times at Fukushima, illustrating just how big a problem it is with current technology.) This could become a major disaster for humanity.

Considering there is an unknown but for the sake of the argument, lets say better than one in eight chance every decade of a Carrington (1859 event) class solar storm, which could knock out the world's energy grids and cause a cascade of these nuclear meltdowns for that reason. (as if the loss of power wasnt bad enough!) So until we solve that, which is related to the problem of what to do about the spent fuel, fission is not a good option either. The danger of a solar storm followed by widespread grid failure, followed by multiple nuclear meltdowns is a serious one that we must not ignore. This is probably the most dangerous risk that nobody knows about.

Are you not aware Fukushima suffered from the backup power supplies being taken out by the Tsunami ?
Nothing at all to do with grid failure.

And everything to do with "groupthink" - remember the Challenger disaster?

The same kind of denial is occurring with nuclear fission and safety of a system that was built before we truly understood its risks.

And that is very dangerous, with the stakes being a lot higher than a few astronauts lives.

Read up on groupthink, and the ultimate heat sink problem. Not the whitewashes of it.

This is why we need to be investing in fusion research. Fusion may be a lot cleaner.

The solar storm issue could be a disaster for the whole human race. A huge solar flare barely missed Earth just a few years ago. It was measured by a space probe that just so happened to be at one of the Lagrangian points - in its line of fire- when it occurred. That should have been a wake up call for all of us.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on October 26, 2018, 12:55:02 pm
That doesn't make sense to me.

There's no profit for any individual electricity company to make its transformers immune to solar storms (ie. put in big switching power supplies which can offset the solar storm induced voltage on circuits during operation). Even if they weren't only interested in short term profit lets say they do implement such protection, but all the other companies do not ... they have added an investment reducing their competitiveness now, but when all the other companies and civilization grinds to a halt for a while they won't really be able to make much profit from it. All the other power companies will be bailed out by government any way, definitely too big to fail.

There's also no political profit in fixing this shit, taking money away from vote generating pork for a black swan event none of your constituents care about is not good for votes. So we muddle on.

Most we can expect is the power companies to at least put in better monitoring so they can disconnect the power before the transformers go, that really costs next to nothing. Of course figuring out how to black start the entire world grid will be a hoot, no one is paying to develop the plans for that either ... so we'll have to figure it out at the time, once the storm is gone.

PS. maybe the renewable systems will be necessary to boot everything else :)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Eka on December 16, 2018, 04:24:28 am
Protection circuits for the power grid aren't that expensive and there has been gov money in the US and Canada to pay for them in the past. They will shut the line down in an emergency knocking power out, but that is much better than blowing out the huge transformers that can take forever to replace.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on December 16, 2018, 09:33:19 am
Quote
funded privately at an insane interest rate which adds billions to the cost.
That's false.
It does not add billions to the cost. It shows the true cost of nuclear. Privatizing means more economic accountability, not more cost.

Except for the endstorage, which is still a public affair which will cost much much much much much much much much much much much much more.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 16, 2018, 01:44:52 pm
Removing transformers in the case of a solar storm requires a warning that an EMP pulse is heading our way.

They should also equip nuclear power plants with backup cooling systems that keep their spent fuel pools supplied with water for as long as several years in the case of a long term grid outage from a global CME event like the Carrington event in 1859  / or other widespread grid failure (such as terrorism- like North Korea or similar exploding a single nuclear device high in space). Its not enough to simply remove power transformers from the grid to prevent their damage, although it is an essential thing that always needs to happen. There is an additional need to keep spent fuel stored at the power plants where it was used, cool indefinitely. It continues to generate enough heat to cause a meltdown if the cooling fails.

Protection circuits for the power grid aren't that expensive and there has been gov money in the US and Canada to pay for them in the past. They will shut the line down in an emergency knocking power out, but that is much better than blowing out the huge transformers that can take forever to replace.

We should be switching to more decentralized power generation and renewables as much as possible and DC should be used for most of our household electricity use in more and more homes. During the sunny times of the year sunlight/PV should be used for more and more electricity. Many parts of the globe are sunny enough for the sun to provide most energy for people.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 16, 2018, 02:04:27 pm
Quote
funded privately at an insane interest rate which adds billions to the cost.
That's false.
It does not add billions to the cost. It shows the true cost of nuclear. Privatizing means more economic accountability, not more cost.
No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear. Again: borrowing money at a high interest rate while you can borrow at a much lower interest rate is just stupid. The Wikipedia page about the Hinkley power plant in the UK is perfectly clear about that. Just the interest rate alone makes the electrivity from the power plant twice as expensive than it has to be.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 16, 2018, 03:09:49 pm
The true cost of nuclear could easily become astronomical if you factor in accidents.

This is not only because of the solar-storm/loss of the ultimate heat sink risk, its also because of the huge and still unsolved closely related problems of nuclear waste creation, need for cooling of that waste on site at spent fuel ponds, and the still not very well understood problems caused by meltdowns and releases into the environment of nuclear waste.

For example, its not well known but the rate of nuclear decay they were expecting to see at Chernobyl is not occurring. Also the accident caused substantial amounts of contamination all across northern Europe, especially at high altitudes where rain dumped the radiation. In addition to the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, a great many other European countries still have issues that impact agriculture from the radiation released by the nuclear accident.

The radiation seems to be decaying much more slowly than was expected.

One has to dig a little to find this under the nuclear industry spin but its an ugly fact behind Chernobyl. The waste in the environment is still not at the stage where it decays as they expected. It may not be for an unknown time. they may simply have been wrong. Radiation dynamics in the environment are extremely complex and I am not a soil or atomic scientist.

There is a large risk also posed by forest fires in the affected area. A big fire in the immediate environment to the plant especially could cause a further spreading of contamination.

I could dredge up the reference, but its not easy reading. Also, the nuclear industry is aggressively trying to spin these accidents as less severe than they really were. Not a cause for much confidence in such critical decisionmaking by society.

So the land there may not be safe to reoccupy - live there - farm there, etc, for a very very long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EBTn_3DBYo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EBTn_3DBYo)

If we were to have a 1859 level solar flare hit the Earth like almost happened in 2013, hundreds, perhaps thousands of transformers would pop causing large scale power outages and likely multiple (most certainly dozens, maybe even hundreds) nuclear meltdowns once their ability to keep things cool ended. (This is something we should be working on until its addressed because its fixable to some degree)

Failure to adequately address this problem on a global scale could result in almost the entire world becoming too contaminated to live safely on after another 1859 level solar storm, which is inevitable - we don't know how frequently they occur but the estimates of their incidence now have to rise after the 2013 narrow miss.

Thats a worst case scenario, but not an unlikely one as shown by the huge number of current reactors many of which are in locations where they would be vulnerable to additional risks such as tsunamis or terrorism. Note that after Fukushima multiple reactors at the site there went into meltdown state for somewhat different reasons, all driven by the loss of backup power.

Nuclear fission produces this dangerous nuclear waste which then must be babysat for very long time - stored in some manner which is impervious to the radiation (which makes almost everything degrade over time) and heat.

That and the risk of meltdowns and the potential cleanup costs and so on make it extremely foolish to continue down that path.

Corporations (which were dreamed up as a way for the wealthy to shirk personal responsibility for their business activities) certainly are not responsible enough to handle these kinds of risks.


Quote
funded privately at an insane interest rate which adds billions to the cost.
That's false.
It does not add billions to the cost. It shows the true cost of nuclear. Privatizing means more economic accountability, not more cost.
No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear. Again: borrowing money at a high interest rate while you can borrow at a much lower interest rate is just stupid. The Wikipedia page about the Hinkley power plant in the UK is perfectly clear about that. Just the interest rate alone makes the electrivity from the power plant twice as expensive than it has to be.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 16, 2018, 03:20:30 pm
The true cost of nuclear could easily become astronomical if you factor in accidents.

The true cost of non-nuclear could easily become astronomical if you factor in global warming.

Provide a way to store large quantities of energy near where it is needed, and a principal advantage of nuclear disappears. Until then...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: GeoffreyF on December 16, 2018, 03:22:53 pm

Either they've gone full retard, or this is just intentional sabotage of the Dutch economy to the benefit of poorer countries in the EU, as well as part of a small attack on Russia. Disingenuous and downright treasonous. Don't attribute to malice is all fine and well, but this is next level retardation.

Speaking of "full Retard" - you come on here with wild hysterics, no numbers and rude language.  My overall reaction is that you really have not put real thought into your words.  Reasoning involves objective facts, numerical if possible and comparing alternatives, considering their relative merits.  you did none of that.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 16, 2018, 03:44:53 pm
You put your finger on a key need, better batteries or other means to store energy over time without losing it.

The true cost of nuclear could easily become astronomical if you factor in accidents.

The true cost of non-nuclear could easily become astronomical if you factor in global warming.

Provide a way to store large quantities of energy near where it is needed, and a principal advantage of nuclear disappears. Until then...

There are huge variations in personal energy use. We could all likely save more.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 16, 2018, 04:11:05 pm
The true cost of nuclear could easily become astronomical if you factor in accidents.

This is not only because of the solar-storm/loss of the ultimate heat sink risk, its also because of the huge and still unsolved closely related problems of nuclear waste creation, need for cooling of that waste on site at spent fuel ponds, and the still not very well understood problems caused by meltdowns and releases into the environment of nuclear waste.

For example, its not well known but the rate of nuclear decay they were expecting to see at Chernobyl is not occurring. Also the accident caused substantial amounts of contamination all across northern Europe, especially at high altitudes where rain dumped the radiation. In addition to the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, a great many other European countries still have issues that impact agriculture from the radiation released by the nuclear accident.
But this is all about old nuclear technology. The power plants they build today are for power generation only and are also way more safe. It is like saying a car is unsafe because you can bang your head against the stearing wheel while every modern car you can buy today has an airbag in the steering wheel.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 17, 2018, 12:05:14 am
If there had been any actual breakthroughs, you can bet we would have heard lots about them. We haven't.

 And meanwhile we've got a serious problem with these old nuclear plants which are getting brittle with time, and spent fuel pools which need to be kept filled with a constant supply of fresh water.

Governments cover up the threat they all pose, which is real. Its a classic 'groupthink' situation, like the Challenger disaster.  People who might have important input or ideas are scared to speak up because of the situation that Irving Janis described in his research on groupthink. Richard Feynman wrote a book on it.

This situation with nuclear fission is dangerous for a great many reasons. There is a serious risk that a solar storm could cause  DC currents which could cause transformers across the entire planet to fail. This would knock out the global power grid for a substantial time if they were not taken offline in time. We're working on developing an early warning capacity by stationing two space probes at the Lagrangian points, significantly closer to the Sun, since the speed of light is significantly faster than the charged particles the Sun emits we could have a bit of warning if this system is functioning. Not much, maybe 15 minutes. If all the power utilities on the planet could be warned and have systems in place to remove the transformers from the grid the destruction of all these transformers could be prevented. There are thousands of them.

The problems with nuclear power plants are many. One big problem is fatigue of metal due to radiation. metal bolts in nuclear power plants in particular seem to have a tendency to fail.

Another is the 'loss of the ultimate heat sink problem'. Loss of cooling capacity.

Its a super complicated set of problems but they are mostly amenable to engineering solutions BUT they need to be undertaken.

We shouldn't build any more fission plants. I don't think that the designs Ive seen offer any radical improvements. They are not immune to these problems as far as I know. 

I'm not an expert but experts that I do trust have told me this.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 17, 2018, 12:45:08 am
If there had been any actual breakthroughs, you can bet we would have heard lots about them. We haven't.
No breakthroughs required. The designs for intrinsically safe (=no runaway/melt down risk) nucluar fission plants are there. Many of the nuclear power plants are of the PWR type which (without any active component) slows the reaction down when the cooling water overheats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 17, 2018, 01:07:10 am
Something not everyone realise is that reactor designs can vary greatly and you can't really compare them safety-wise. If someone suggested to build a graphite moderated reactor like Chernobyl today I would be the first to protest, but you can't compare that to other reactor designs like the molten salt thorium reactors or pebble-bed reactors.

And despite e.g. Russia still having that kind of reactors in use, if you calculate the number of deaths because of nuclear, hydro-electric and coal per watt-hour produced, it becomes painfully clear that nuclear is, by a fair margin, the safest power type we have. (You can use worst case figures for nuclear and still get the same results). If you factor in environmental effects like acidification and mercury poisoning from coal it becomes even more clear how much cleaner and safer nuclear is. Nuclear is more expensive than coal because coal doesn't have to pay for its negative side-effects (externalities) like nuclear do. The high cost of new reactors today is because the anti-nuclear lobbyists tactics is not to demand the reactors be shut down (primarily), but rather to lobby for stricter and stricter safety requirements, insurance-requirements and other tax based tricks to make them uneconomical.

Dealing with the waste is not a big (technical) problem either. It is very dangerous initially, for sure, but there is so little of it produced compared to how much power is generated that it is manageable and easy to contain. It is not like with coal which dump shit into the atmosphere continuously. Nuclear waste is solid burnt-out fuel you put into containers and store in a safe fashion, nothing gets into the environment. The "millions of years problem" is very misleading, it's true it will be radioactive for a long time, but radioactivity decline exponentially. In reality the hottest, most dangerous, components cool down very quickly; and after a relatively short time you are left with only the weakly radioactive stuff (with a very long half-life). So the waste will be slightly more radioactive than background radiation for a very long time, but not nearly as dangerous as claimed, and in fact, after a few hundred years comparable to radioactive ore that already exists in the ground in many places. Someone put it like this: even if 10% leaks out after 100 years you are no worse off than what you started with. So to simply deposit it deep underground really is a safe solution. (Even safer would be to deposit it into a subduction-zone in the ocean and let plate tectonics move the material back into the mantle, but that will never be politically possible of course. But just depositing it deep underground is still safe enough.)

Unfortunately we can't build enough new nuclear reactors to replace coal quickly enough to combat climate change even if there was political will to do so. I believe I heard that you can at most increase the capacity by 6% the next 30 years or so. Nuclear could be a small part of a solution though.

I don't think that the designs Ive seen offer any radical improvements. They are not immune to these problems as far as I know.
What about thorium molten salt reactors?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 17, 2018, 01:25:56 am
If there had been any actual breakthroughs, you can bet we would have heard lots about them. We haven't.

 And meanwhile we've got a serious problem with these old nuclear plants which are getting brittle with time, and spent fuel pools which need to be kept filled with a constant supply of fresh water.

Governments cover up the threat they all pose, which is real. Its a classic 'groupthink' situation, like the Challenger disaster.  People who might have important input or ideas are scared to speak up because of the situation that Irving Janis described in his research on groupthink. Richard Feynman wrote a book on it.

This situation with nuclear fission is dangerous for a great many reasons. There is a serious risk that a solar storm could cause  DC currents which could cause transformers across the entire planet to fail. This would knock out the global power grid for a substantial time if they were not taken offline in time. We're working on developing an early warning capacity by stationing two space probes at the Lagrangian points, significantly closer to the Sun, since the speed of light is significantly faster than the charged particles the Sun emits we could have a bit of warning if this system is functioning. Not much, maybe 15 minutes. If all the power utilities on the planet could be warned and have systems in place to remove the transformers from the grid the destruction of all these transformers could be prevented. There are thousands of them.

The problems with nuclear power plants are many. One big problem is fatigue of metal due to radiation. metal bolts in nuclear power plants in particular seem to have a tendency to fail.

Another is the 'loss of the ultimate heat sink problem'. Loss of cooling capacity.

Its a super complicated set of problems but they are mostly amenable to engineering solutions BUT they need to be undertaken.

We shouldn't build any more fission plants. I don't think that the designs Ive seen offer any radical improvements. They are not immune to these problems as far as I know. 

I'm not an expert but experts that I do trust have told me this.
As far as I understand the the problems with the traditional nuclear power plants is that they were essentially an offshoot of weapons development, or even intended to produce the materials for that. That's a lot like how the first generations of rockets were essentially ballistic missiles with a booster seat. Many of the nuclear plants we currently have are still built on this legacy. When they're designed from the ground up to be safe and as inert as possible, they should be much safer.

Ideally the technology producing our power would be entirely safe and clean, but the two current main methods both carry distinct risks. Emitting tons of junk into the atmosphere is a high stakes game unlike anything we've tried before too.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 17, 2018, 01:42:59 am
Ideally the technology producing our power would be entirely safe and clean, but the two current main methods both carry distinct risks. Emitting tons of junk into the atmosphere is a high stakes game unlike anything we've tried before too.
A Swedish study concluded that about 3000 die prematurely each year in Sweden (population of about 10 million) because of air pollution, mainly from coal power. In ten years that is as many as the worst caste estimate from Chernobyl, globally, over all time. And that is only in Sweden. Hopefully that puts things into perspective. Add to that the problem with greenhouse gases, acidification and mercury poisoning of the oceans, etc.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 17, 2018, 02:05:16 am
A Swedish study concluded that about 3000 die prematurely each year in Sweden (population of about 10 million) because of air pollution, mainly from coal power. In ten years that is as many as the worst caste estimate from Chernobyl, globally, over all time. And that is only in Sweden. Hopefully that puts things into perspective. Add to that the problem with greenhouse gases, acidification and mercury poisoning of the oceans, etc.
One of the issues with nuclear power is that the damage can be a lot less incremental. Emissions are slowly choking civilisation to death, whereas nuclear power can deliver a solid punch in the gut at once. It does come with the possibility of a more slow and insidious process of waste leaking out into the environment. We've dumped waste in oceans and other ill-contained situations before and will pay the price for it eventually as the container contents will spread, but even well-kept dumping grounds can't be expected to be maintained for millennia to come.

Neither are very attractive options in the long run. I don't know what the answer is, as renewable energy doesn't seem to be up to the task of replacing those two yet.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 17, 2018, 02:09:39 am
Do you know why Germany decided to stop using nuclear power?
After Chernobyl.


And how then Vattenfall, a Swedish company,  sued them under the rigged ISDS system.

Note that #ISDS lets nations taxpayers be sued for ANY CHANGE, no matter how justified.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 17, 2018, 02:47:39 am
Do you know why Germany decided to stop using nuclear power?
After Chernobyl.

You do don't you?

And how then Vattenfall, a Swedish company, sued them under the rigged ISDS system.

Note that #ISDS let them be sued for ANY CHANGE, no matter how justified.
Who are you talking to?

Please refrain from injecting the usual theories and speculation into this discussion. There are plenty of your other threads where you can do that without much harm.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 17, 2018, 03:39:32 am
A Swedish study concluded that about 3000 die prematurely each year in Sweden (population of about 10 million) because of air pollution, mainly from coal power. In ten years that is as many as the worst case estimate from Chernobyl, globally, over all time. And that is only in Sweden. Hopefully that puts things into perspective. Add to that the problem with greenhouse gases, acidification and mercury poisoning of the oceans, etc.
One of the issues with nuclear power is that the damage can be a lot less incremental. Emissions are slowly choking civilisation to death, whereas nuclear power can deliver a solid punch in the gut at once. It does come with the possibility of a more slow and insidious process of waste leaking out into the environment. We've dumped waste in oceans and other ill-contained situations before and will pay the price for it eventually as the container contents will spread, but even well-kept dumping grounds can't be expected to be maintained for millennia to come.

Neither are very attractive options in the long run. I don't know what the answer is, as renewable energy doesn't seem to be up to the task of replacing those two yet.
Neither is perfect, but if you compare the negative effects per unit of energy produced it is clear that coal is far far worse. Nuclear is even safer, and arguably cleaner, than hydro-electric. Hydro delivers a far heavier punch when it fails, but water is less scary than radiation.

Nuclear waste is a mostly a solved problem: you store it a few km under ground at a carefully chosen location. It's highly radioactive at first, but radioactivity decays exponentially. Therefore the radioactivity never reaches zero (thus "it's dangerous for eternity") but after a relatively short time period most of the radioactivity disappears. Even if 10% of the waste leaks out already after 100 years it would roughly correspond to the radioactivity of the original uranium ore that went into the reactor. I.e. the ore that existed naturally in the ground in the first place. Of course, the containers are designed to last for millennia so they should not leak at all. The waste is dangerous for a very long time, but it is not nearly as bad as people make it seem, and it's very small amounts compared to the amount of energy produced.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 17, 2018, 03:54:30 am
Do you know why Germany decided to stop using nuclear power?
After Chernobyl.

You do don't you?

And how then Vattenfall, a Swedish company, sued them under the rigged ISDS system.

Note that #ISDS let them be sued for ANY CHANGE, no matter how justified.
I assume it was directed at me since it refers to Sweden.

I believe they they made the unfortunate decision to shut down their reactors prematurely and replace them with coal and Russian natural gas based on an emotional reaction to the Japanese tsunami and the Fukushima meltdown it caused. I'm not sure what the point is though?

I'm not sure what Vatenfall is up to, they are government owned so I'm sure it's all very political. I'm not a fan of ISDS type deals either?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 17, 2018, 04:17:06 am
Nuclear waste is a mostly a solved problem: you store it a few km under ground at a carefully chosen location. It's highly radioactive at first, but radioactivity decays exponentially. Therefore the radioactivity never reaches zero (thus "it's dangerous for eternity") but after a relatively short time period most of the radioactivity disappears. Even if 10% of the waste leaks out already after 100 years it would roughly correspond to the radioactivity of the original uranium ore that went into the reactor. I.e. the ore that existed naturally in the ground in the first place. Of course, the containers are designed to last for millennia so they should not leak at all. The waste is dangerous for a very long time, but it is not nearly as bad as people make it seem, and it's very small amounts compared to the amount of energy produced.

They need better ways to store our existing waste and better cleaner kinds of nuclear energy before they build any more plants.

We should be focusing on things like better batteries and other storage methods to store the substantial amounts of solar energy that go to waste due to it being generated during the daytime and summer - Once we simply solve that one problem a lot of other issues become much more manageable.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html)

Quote
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/nuclear-waste-accident-2-years-ago-may-cost-more-than-2-billion-to-clean-up/

"The 2014 explosion apparently occurred when engineers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory were preparing a drum of plutonium and americium waste—usually packed with kitty litter (yes, kitty litter)—and decided to "substitute an organic material for a mineral one."

"The new material caused a complex chemical reaction that blew the lid off a drum, sending mounds of white, radioactive foam into the air and contaminating 35 percent of the underground area," the LA Times wrote. The dump's filtration system, which was supposed to "prevent any radioactive releases," subsequently failed.

No workers were in the shafts of the dump at the time. Workers on the surface were only exposed to low doses of radiation due to the HEPA filters in the ventilation system.

Still, the dump site was set to receive another 277,000 drums of radioactive waste from around the country. The congestion is now creating a costly problem.

The federal government renewed its contract with dump operator Nuclear Waste Partnership to the tune of $640 million extra for cleanup. That number could grow, especially as federal officials now say the contaminated ventilation system on the dump needs to be replaced—a project that will not be completed until 2021. Until then, the dump must remain open, but it can not accept nuclear waste at the rate it had planned. The dump costs $200 million a year to remain open, the LA Times reported. Meanwhile, feds also have to pay to house the nuclear waste being stored at sites around the US (in Washington state and Idaho, for example) that's supposed to be on its way to the WIPP.

While there may be cheaper solutions to the problem, the Department of Energy is under pressure to fix the New Mexico dump to make good on a US agreement with Russia to fulfill mutual reductions of plutonium. WIPP is currently the primary destination for weapons-grade nuclear waste. If it closes, a likely expensive and time-consuming disposal alternative would have to be proposed.

Edwin Lyman, a physicist and nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the LA Times that, "The decision means operations at the dump must resume. They have no choice."

That means that WIPP cleanup, including indefinite housing costs for nuclear waste around the country that was to be shipped to WIPP, could rank among the costliest nuclear waste cleanup efforts in US history, on par with clean up after Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. Cleanup after that incident cost the federal government about $1 billion, or $1.7 billion adjusted for inflation.

Update: A DoE spokesperson e-mailed Ars on Wednesday, writing "The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is critical to the Department of Energy’s mission to cleanup waste Cold War nuclear weapons production. WIPP is the nation’s only repository for the disposal of nuclear waste known as transuranic (TRU) waste, which consists of contaminated items such as clothing, tools, rags, residues, debris, soil, etc. The Department is committed to the recovery, and resumption of TRU disposal operations at WIPP when it is safe to do so.”


Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 17, 2018, 04:27:31 am
Neither is perfect, but if you compare the negative effects per unit of energy produced it is clear that coal is far far worse. Nuclear is even safer, and arguably cleaner, than hydro-electric. Hydro delivers a far heavier punch when it fails, but water is less scary than radiation.

Nuclear waste is a mostly a solved problem: you store it a few km under ground at a carefully chosen location. It's highly radioactive at first, but radioactivity decays exponentially. Therefore the radioactivity never reaches zero (thus "it's dangerous for eternity") but after a relatively short time period most of the radioactivity disappears. Even if 10% of the waste leaks out already after 100 years it would roughly correspond to the radioactivity of the original uranium ore that went into the reactor. I.e. the ore that existed naturally in the ground in the first place. Of course, the containers are designed to last for millennia so they should not leak at all. The waste is dangerous for a very long time, but it is not nearly as bad as people make it seem, and it's very small amounts compared to the amount of energy produced.
I don't think the current negative per unit of energy produced are a very good metric to compare the two. Nuclear waste will be a larger problem in the future than it is now. It's not at its worst yet and there are a lot of debts to pay. We've been terrible at storing it away safely, pretty much randomly dumping it all over the place. Thinking we can somehow now build a perfectly safe storage facility that this time will not be corroded or flooded or cracked by an earthquake is just more human hubris. Though we've come close we haven't seen nuclear power at its worst either. Chernobyl could have been many times worse as the real disaster was narrowly avoided. It's estimated that blast could have wiped out half of Europe and made it a radiation zone for 500000 years. That's many times more than humans have been around, for anyone not appreciating what half a million years means.

I'm not sure what makes you think waste will be safe after a 100 years. If it's highly radioactive now, it will still be dangerously radioactive after one half-life. Even the shortest lived nuclear materials have a half-life of about that period. Most have considerably longer half-lives.

"The back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent fuel rods, contains fission products that emit beta and gamma radiation, and actinides that emit alpha particles, such as uranium-234 (half-life 245 thousand years), neptunium-237 (2.144 million years), plutonium-238 (87.7 years) and americium-241 (432 years), and even sometimes some neutron emitters such as californium (half-life of 898 years for Cf-251). These isotopes are formed in nuclear reactors."

I don't really understand how one could claim hydro would potentially be more dangerous. Not even the largest dam breaking could cause a disaster wiping out half of Europe. Moreover, the area affected can be rebuilt relatively easy instead of turning into a radiation zone for thousands of years. I'm not necessarily opposed to using nuclear power, but being overly naive about what it is and isn't is not the way to do it. Stuffing waste underground in places we have less than ideal access to isn't a solution. It's the same reasoning that lead us to pumping endless amounts of waste into the air and oceans. We pretend it's gone, but it's not. We should acknowledge we don't have a clue what to do with the waste and we should acknowledge that fucking it up can have serious consequences for large parts of the world.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 17, 2018, 05:27:15 am
We should be focusing on things like better batteries and other storage methods to store the substantial amounts of solar energy that go to waste due to it being generated during the daytime and summer - Once we simply solve that one problem a lot of other issues become much more manageable.
Right, simple: just invent some new super battery! Not so simple I suspect. Might not even be possible. Even if it is, who knows when the breakthrough comes. Nuclear is proven existing technology. Super batteries is wishful thinking.

If the goal is to replace coal in order to prevent climate change, then there isn't enough time to be picky. We should use all available options, and even so we would have to reduce energy usage a lot. Instead people are replacing nuclear with coal sadly. A few years ago they said that the world usage of coal isn't just increasing, the rate of change is increasing. I'm glad I'm not around a hundred years from now.

The reason we are still stuck with temporary nuclear waste storage is because there is so much political resistance to anything called nuclear.

The US is special, you process a lot of radioactive material for military purposes. I'm only referring to civilian use. In fact, it's the military side of things that is the root of all the problems so far. It's why the safer reactor types has not been developed. The ones in use today have military applications. The reason for the Chernobyl disaster was because of a military experiment performed at the reactor. The light water reactors that are still common today exists because they were suitable for use by the US navy, and so on. If they had a molten salt reactor in Fukushima instead the disaster would have been avoided (it would shut down gracefully even in case of complete power failure).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 17, 2018, 05:52:24 am
We've been terrible at storing it away safely, pretty much randomly dumping it all over the place.
Yes, because anti-nuclear activists oppose every proposal for permanent storage. The technical solution exists as I've outlined previously.

Thinking we can somehow now build a perfectly safe storage facility
Of course not, there is no such thing as perfectly safe. It's just that the consequence of failure is not that severe as people seem to think, in the unlikely even it were to fail and things started leaking several km below the earth. (Note, this would be far below the biosphere. It's not comparable to dumping waste willy nilly in the ocean).

It's estimated that blast could have wiped out half of Europe and made it a radiation zone for 500000 years.
Well, that is news to me, so pardon me if I'm sceptical. As far as I know Chernobyl is pretty much the worst that could possibly happen and there are hydro dam accidents that killed far more people. The Bhopal disaster was probably worse as well. In fact only about 100 died in direct relation to Chernobyl, other figures stated are typically the worst case estimate of the long term effect of the fallout.

I'm not sure what makes you think waste will be safe after a 100 years. If it's highly radioactive now, it will still be dangerously radioactive after one half-life. Even the shortest lived nuclear materials have a half-life of about that period. Most have considerably longer half-lives.
I haven't said it is safe after 100 years, I even said it will never be safe! What I did say was that most of the radiation disappear in the beginning since it cools of exponentially (might be logarithmic, not sure now, but same conclusion either way). It will not remain super dangerous for millennia as many of the anti-nuclear people claim.

I don't really understand how one could claim hydro would potentially be more dangerous.

The Banqiao Dam failure in 1975 killed 171000 people, that is far worse than Chernobyl.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 17, 2018, 06:36:38 am
That's exactly the overly rosy view of the risks involved with nuclear power which make me hesitant about using it. We've tripped over our own overconfidence too many times already. We always think we can build an everything proof storage facility and there's always some unforeseen flaw which ruins the whole plan. Like I said before I'm actually not opposed to nuclear power, but I am opposed to people naively waving the risks away. If we're not going into this being wary of every step we take, it's simply going to end in disaster. In that case we better abandon it and not play with the fire we can't responsibly handle.

Nuclear contamination can indeed be dangerous for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. That's no imaginary claim, but agreed upon by those both for and against nuclear power. It's not some residual radiation either. Things aren't remotely safe after a 100 years. It's also true that Chernobyl was a disaster avoided. A few men prevented what used to be the core melting through the floor and reaching a reservoir of water. It's accepted that would have caused a much more massive steam explosion which would have wiped out the entire plant and led to much of Europe being heavily contaminated. "By most estimates, such a blast may have wiped out half of Europe, leaving it riskier to live in for 500,000 years." I can imagine that being unaware of both facts makes one much more cavalier in regards to the risks of nuclear power. It's hard to fear what you don't know. We danced with the devil and he threw us a bone.

It should also be noted that we're still dealing with the containment of Chernobyl. We haven't fixed or cleaned a lot, we've just built another dome over it to make it go away. That's essentially the same as stuffing it in a mine. It's probably naive to think the disaster as it happened didn't claim that many victims. We know the impact was quite significant as many times more were poisoned rather than killed, and we also know the Soviet Union did everything in its power to downplay the scale of the disaster. The same applies to Fukushima. The Japanese have been diligently downplaying the scale of the disaster and we don't have any real solutions to the problems they face. They just keep on building storage tank after storage tank to store the contaminated water used to cool the reactors, but it turns out those are already leaking water. Their "alternative" if filtering it a bit and dumping it into the sea while storing the highly radioactive sludge on-site. Those are not real solutions. It's moving the problem around.

If we're not serious about the problems we're already seeing, we're just asking for some more.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4 (https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 17, 2018, 09:27:46 am
We should be focusing on things like better batteries and other storage methods to store the substantial amounts of solar energy that go to waste due to it being generated during the daytime and summer - Once we simply solve that one problem a lot of other issues become much more manageable.
Right, simple: just invent some new super battery! Not so simple I suspect. Might not even be possible. Even if it is, who knows when the breakthrough comes. Nuclear is proven existing technology. Super batteries is wishful thinking.

Actually that's wrong. We are currently using super batteries, when compared with the batteries of, say, 40 years ago.

Batteries and other technologies (hydro, flywheels, etc etc etc) have been evaluated for many decades - and been found to be insufficient. I remember my father formally assessing them in the late 70s / early 80s when he worked at the Central Electricity Research Labs.


Quote
If the goal is to replace coal in order to prevent climate change, then there isn't enough time to be picky. We should use all available options, and even so we would have to reduce energy usage a lot. Instead people are replacing nuclear with coal sadly. A few years ago they said that the world usage of coal isn't just increasing, the rate of change is increasing. I'm glad I'm not around a hundred years from now.

The reason we are still stuck with temporary nuclear waste storage is because there is so much political resistance to anything called nuclear.

Partly; in practice there will always be some "temporary" storage for some waste, before it is ready for long-term disposal.

OTOH, the fossil fuel waste long-term storage is already in place, but completely inadequate.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on December 17, 2018, 09:30:48 am
Thanos was right. Less people is the answer.

Edit: slight side point. A lot of the rationale for battery storage not being sufficient comes from many of the heavy industries which consume a lot of electricity because it is currently cost efficient. Things like the Hall–Héroult process for example. We can knock our grid usage down considerably by making a few simple changes to how we run the world. Ultimately supply and demand need to meet somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on December 17, 2018, 02:34:29 pm
Aluminium cost is already driven by electricity cost and it's a 100+ billion dollar a year industry, lack of energy efficiency is not because of lack of trying.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on December 17, 2018, 02:40:39 pm
It takes way more energy to get aluminium from ore than recycling it which is the point. We need to concentrate on efficient reuse of materials to slow the initial energy and consumption requirements down. Also things that we make from the materials need to last longer.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 17, 2018, 06:03:43 pm
It takes way more energy to get aluminium from ore than recycling it which is the point. We need to concentrate on efficient reuse of materials to slow the initial energy and consumption requirements down.
That can't work. Economic growth means more new materials are needed and thus processing of ore.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on December 17, 2018, 07:25:01 pm
No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear.
This has a good reason.
No bank and no insurance wants to take the risk of nuclear, so the interest rate is very high on this high risk investment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Take any insurance contract, for anything, cars, houses,.... They specifically exclude the risk of damage due to nuclear fission or fusion.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 17, 2018, 07:38:17 pm
That can't work. Economic growth means more new materials are needed and thus processing of ore.
Sure it can. We don't need new phones or furniture every two years. We need to build better and use longer.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on December 17, 2018, 07:43:04 pm
That can't work. Economic growth means more new materials are needed and thus processing of ore.

I was hoping someone would reply with that because it's my point: economic growth is built on a lot of flawed assumptions which have an end game which is not sustainable. Assumption number one is that we build economics on a pyramid of materials which are not fungible or infinite. The cruel irony is that our only non fiat standard currency is basically a relatively valuable material (due to scarcity)

Sure it can. We don't need new phones or furniture every two years. We need to build better and use longer.

Exactly. Using that example, the laptop I'm currently writing this on is made of 100% recycled aluminium. When its time is up (5-8 years based on current expectations - I keep them much longer than the average 2 years!), it will be turned into a new one.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 17, 2018, 07:52:57 pm
When you bring up the sustainability of overconsumption, and even the climate change problem, some wealthy people immediately jump to blaming it on the middle class.

Not on any particular country's middle class. All of it.

I think thats just evil.

They argue that desires on the part of the rest of humanity to have long needed improvements in standards of living are impossible to realize because of inexorable 'economic realities' (Imagine one saying 'you see, Virginia, your labor just simply isn't worth enough for that anymore')

They 'deserve what they have' but the way they frame it, others don't.  They can afford cutting-edge energy solutions, but others who can't should have to pay more for energy to force them to freeze, or buy one.

There is another hidden sub text here in the US, they want to export our natural gas elsewhere (Asia, not Europe is where it fetches the most, as many as four or five times its US price) Despite the fact that the resource by many accounts has almost run out, they want to make hefty profits on it. (or maybe they hope to use ISDS and a manufactured crists to soak the nation in an ISDS suit when we as a nation realized we made a mistake signing the right to prioritize our own needs first- our 'right to regulate' away.

Is milking all nations for everything they can an entitlement of capital? Some clearly think it is. Thats how developing nations ended up so insanely in debt. because of this so called investor class and their sketchy deals.

 They will think of a million different reasons to justify doing whatever they want to do. They are experts at that.

This is why the solutions for every problem exist and they must be the common sense ones. Lacking any drama.

Simple strategies like multi-pane windows and spray in insulation could save huge amounts of money on heating.

PV systems - passive solar design - even retrofitting it, and solar hot water systems, are proven performers.

Why wont they do this, in fact, as many people could definitely use the help and it would have a salutary effect on the economy, why wont the government subsidize it?

In part, because "GATS". Also because of the GPA (or AGP in some countries) procurement rules. If the insiders cant monopolize it, they don't want it.  But the biggest reason is they have other plans.

Because they want a perfect storm to blow in and destroy older housing so they can tear it down and build new that nobody can afford. This is a problem everywhere but its the worst in the US.

It would force millions out of affordable homes they live in today. And radically change the US and similar countries, (as far as age of their housing stock) especially urban areas for the worse. 

Thats also why they want to stealthily - then suddenly cause the price of energy here to double or perhaps even triple or more. Knowing that many families, already reeling from having the prices of drugs, health insurance and out of pocket costs, and education jump through the roof, and the outsourcing and offshoring of too many jobs, which is also planned - and described as 'payoff for the world trade agenda'.

Payoff for misplaced trust is more like it.

Families absolutely cannot handle it. All these things are too much for families.

They are planning to cash in, buying up properties in anticipation of the change. "These buildings would be too expensive to renovate".

When they aren't.

People have to call them out for their manipulations.

Punitive thinking that punishes middle class and working class people for not being wealthy is not going to solve our problems.

Another serious problem is a mindset of disaster capitalism. We can see that aim clearly in the outcome after the recent hurricane in Puerto Rico.

Many of America's wealthiest families literally made their fortunes on it in one shape or form from really shameless acts of war profiteering and exploitation, financial markets manipulations that clearly were illegal but were never prosecuted. they come like clockwork every ten years or so.. and it has not gone away. We have to stay away from falling into traps that would expose our countries to the schemes of the disaster capitalists. Particularly anything that could possibly have the tag 'emergency' attached to it. Because that is their way, the magic word 'emergency' in the disaster capitalist world means no adult supervision. And making money hand over fist at the taxpayers expense.

Nothing gets disaster capitalists more excited then talking about emergencies, I mean actually excited.

ISDS is a scam by which the disaster capitalists hope to milk the public again and again. We have to diteh it before anything like the things others described earlier could possibly be safe. Not just because corporations are irresponsible and getting a free pass to steal.. because of ISDS's ratcheting in effect, which makes correcting any mistake literally impossible except at huge taxpayers expense in 'future expected profits'. (Even though future cant be predicted and its likely huge profits - genuine ones will become more difficult as jobs dry up- no the most ridiculously optimistic estimates must be used- thats how ISDS works. The people exercising the right to regulate must be punished so they wont do it again!) we can never approve anything and then reverse it if it turns out to have been a mistake. A ratchet clause is literally a noose choking policy and making it only be able to deregulate, and never regulate again unless it is literally the most half assed means of doing anything, and it also has to make them more money or they suddenly must be compensated. Nomatter what facts say on causation or who is responsible or why. No more compromising. With ISDS, by design, government of by and for the people can't ever happen as it should. And thats ISDS's goal.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 17, 2018, 08:57:59 pm
Sure it can. We don't need new phones or furniture every two years. We need to build better and use longer.

The issue is that a drastic change is needed in how society operates.
We don't need new phones or furniture every 2 years, but the current system is built on "keeping people busy", and people being busy they make things (some intangible "things" being just throwing wrenches into others' gears, making those work more to overcome them), and one needs a way to shove these things somewhere to continue keeping them busy, and the cycle repeats.

I've been saying for a long time that people could probably only work an average of 1-2 days per week doing just what's needed for living in a comfortable manner. But something pushes stupid humans to keep themselves busy working their ass off making totally unnecessary and wasteful stuff for nothing at all instead...

Still haven't understood what, but my dominant view is currently just personal benefit and wealth of some who understood that people would always be happy to work becasue they have nothing else to do... becasue the system never let them enough time to think about what else they could do.

Actually just watched an instersting doc on new gen nuclear which was very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCEjWNGv6Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCEjWNGv6Y)

But while that's great and is probably indeed a solution the planning has been poor, and that would have to be improved. There are a lot of complaints in there that current plants are built on "stone age tech" and that we've long known of better solutions - aka we missed on crucial improvements becasue the plants were built with waaaay too long a planned service life. What that means is then that any new plant needs to be designed with only 10-20 years life so that we don't drag dinosaurs again and just decommission/rebuild frequently as there is further progress. BUT then is it still economically viable in this case? For sure not with such a heavy implementation. Maybe some of the lighter ones presented in this like the NuScale stuff...

About the waste management, I still believe it's a problem. AFAIK so far every attempt at long term storage has failed in a way or another, so there is absolutely nothing to make me believe that the next one will magically work.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: bd139 on December 17, 2018, 09:07:29 pm
Fear drives people to that outcome. Everyone is taught to fear the next person up the hierarchy. The only people who win out of it are the people who are at the top and they gain the most from having people working all the time.

I make sure there is no one above me and equally importantly no one below me. Beside is the preferred position.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 17, 2018, 09:29:02 pm
No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear.
This has a good reason.
No bank and no insurance wants to take the risk of nuclear, so the interest rate is very high on this high risk investment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Yes it has because the Brittish government could have borrowed the money as a country for a very low rate no matter what the purpose is.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 17, 2018, 10:29:18 pm
Insurance always excludes nuclear accidents, radiation, acts of wars, and everything of that nature. Its not meant to insure against those kinds of risks.

No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear.
This has a good reason.
No bank and no insurance wants to take the risk of nuclear, so the interest rate is very high on this high risk investment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Yes it has because the Brittish government could have borrowed the money as a country for a very low rate no matter what the purpose is.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 17, 2018, 10:55:33 pm
Insurance always excludes nuclear accidents, radiation, acts of wars, and everything of that nature. Its not meant to insure against those kinds of risks.

No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear.
This has a good reason.
No bank and no insurance wants to take the risk of nuclear, so the interest rate is very high on this high risk investment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Yes it has because the Brittish government could have borrowed the money as a country for a very low rate no matter what the purpose is.
Again: insurance has nothing to do with the interest rate a country pays. FFS the US is borrowing craploads of money to buy weapons!
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 18, 2018, 12:34:46 am
This may sound crazy, but often now it seems to be against the rules for a government to do something thats saves its taxpayers money if it would be more profitable for investors for them to do something else.  Seriously.

All sorts of rules apply to governments now. Their hands are being tied by international rules that ensure they support business' maximum profitability at any cost.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Nauris on December 18, 2018, 04:32:37 pm
No, the Brittisch government borrowed money at an insane interest rate. That is plain stupid. It has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear.
This has a good reason.
No bank and no insurance wants to take the risk of nuclear, so the interest rate is very high on this high risk investment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Take any insurance contract, for anything, cars, houses,.... They specifically exclude the risk of damage due to nuclear fission or fusion.
I would think more important reason for high interest is Areva being half-bankrupt already and with strong track record of not capable of delivering anything in-time or within budget. Loaning money to them is like buying Greece bonds, good luck getting anything back.

Also regarding the waste issue, I remember hearing some years ago Mr Putin promised significant R&D effort into nuclear waste reprocessing, investments at Mayak reprosessing facility etc. Great goal was to develop closed fuel cycle so no radioactive waste is left to dispose of. But he may be out of money, as always.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 19, 2018, 10:47:12 pm
That's exactly the overly rosy view of the risks involved with nuclear power which make me hesitant about using it. We've tripped over our own overconfidence too many times already. We always think we can build an everything proof storage facility and there's always some unforeseen flaw which ruins the whole plan. Like I said before I'm actually not opposed to nuclear power, but I am opposed to people naively waving the risks away. If we're not going into this being wary of every step we take, it's simply going to end in disaster. In that case we better abandon it and not play with the fire we can't responsibly handle.
We should be very careful, absolutely, but exaggerating the risks is also bad. In the 60's they definitely had a overly rosy view of the risks involved. The US-airforce even wanted to build a nuclear powered bomber... talk about flying disaster waiting to happen. :palm: Luckily it's not even technically feasible otherwise it probably would have existed today. In the 60's they also thought dumping mercury a few km off the coast was a great way to get rid of industrial waste. That was incredibly stupid, no argument there, and we are suffering for it today.

But that is not the problem now. Look at the graphs posted before: the only energy types that are decreasing are nuclear and oil. Oil because we are running out of it, nuclear because people are overly afraid of it due to all the scaremongering. We are replacing nuclear with coal, that is a huge problem. Air pollution from coal power plants is a far far grater health issue than radiation from Chernobyl or Fukushima combined. If you extrapolate from the Swedish study I mentioned before you get that coal kills about 200k (prematurely) every year in Europe, compare that to the estimates of 30k (worst case) from Chernobyl. A nuclear power plant can blow up every year and it will still cause less health problems than the air pollution from coal does. Add to that the environmental effects from coal such as acidification and mercury poisoning, or the greenhouse gas emissions, and it should be blatantly obvious to any rational person that it is coal we should be getting rid of, not nuclear. It's not that nuclear is 100% safe, it's that the alternatives are far worse (even hydro is more dangerous).

Nuclear contamination can indeed be dangerous for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. That's no imaginary claim, but agreed upon by those both for and against nuclear power. It's not some residual radiation either. Things aren't remotely safe after a 100 years.
Yes, as I wrote: the waste is dangerous (radioactive) for ever, that is a given by the nature of an exponentially decreasing function: it never reaches 0. However, the radioactivity goes down quickly in the beginning, it's not constant, it's not even linear. For most of the infamous millennia the waste is only weakly radioactive. So when people claim it will be super dangerous for millennia they are being dishonest.

Besides, something being dangerous forever is common; take mercury for example, it's also dangerous for all eternity. At least nuclear waste becomes (almost) harmless after a millennia. Yet no-one is talking about the mercury storage problem.

I never said the waste is safe after a hundred years. It is not, it is still 10 times as radioactive as the fresh fuel. But think about what that means: we dig up uranium from a mine, refine it and use it as fuel. When we take it out of the reactor again it has become much more radioactive, and so we need to store it somewhere safe, a geologically stable location far underground for example. After a 100 years, it will be about 10 times as radioactive as the new fuel. But if 10% of the 100 year old spent fuel leak out into the old mine again, the net change in radioactivity in the mine will be zero! The math is simple enough. None of it should ever leak of course, containment vessels are designed to last for millennia. This is just to put things into perspective. If it did leak it wouldn't be particularly dangerous.

Of course you shouldn't store waste in a volcano, or an area with earthquakes, just like you shouldn't store other dangerous substances in a volcano. You pick a geologically stable area to store it in and then back-fill the mine so no-one gets in there by mistake. A few km under ground is far outside the biosphere, nothing living will get in contact with it. A small amount of highly radioactive solids that are stored a few km under ground isn't a threat to anyone, it really isn't a problem.

It's also true that Chernobyl was a disaster avoided. A few men prevented what used to be the core melting through the floor and reaching a reservoir of water. It's accepted that would have caused a much more massive steam explosion which would have wiped out the entire plant and led to much of Europe being heavily contaminated. "By most estimates, such a blast may have wiped out half of Europe, leaving it riskier to live in for 500,000 years." I can imagine that being unaware of both facts makes one much more cavalier in regards to the risks of nuclear power. It's hard to fear what you don't know. We danced with the devil and he threw us a bone.
It's these kind of exaggerations and scaremongering that is the real problem.

The danger with nuclear is that you get radioactive smoke particles that spread over a huge area. It is impossible to contain or clean up. That is what happened after Chernobyl. The radioactive fallout from Chernobyl rained down all over Europe (mostly here in Sweden actually). Some of the radioactive elements accumulate in crops and food animals and thus we get a tiny increase in radiation dose compared to if it hadn't happened. For the individual it isn't noticeable, you get higher dosage from a dental x-ray. But if you integrate it over all the people exposed over time (and make worst case assumptions) it's still bad since so many are affected.

I'm sure Chernobyl could have been somewhat worse if most of the fallout ended up over Europe's more densely populated areas. What does "riskier to live in" mean here (we will never know because those "may have" figures was just pulled out of someones behind) but it probably would not be riskier than living in e.g. Denver (which is naturally relatively radioactive). It's a very deceptive and misleading statement. There are people living even inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone today that never left, they are doing just fine. The remaining reactors at the Chernobyl power-plant are still in operation today, people go there to work as we speak!(EDIT: The Chernobyl plant has been decommissioned now, sorry about that, I've read outdated information at some time. But the last reactor wasn't closed until 2000 so my point is still valid: people continued to work there for many years after the accident. It's not like you couldn't go near the site, live there or work there.)

It really was a disaster though, about 100 deaths can be linked directly to the accident and they had to evacuate the nearby town. Most of those who died were the firefighters, etc, who were first at site and who weren't informed about the risks involved by the authorities at the time. There shouldn't be any Chernobyl-type reactors anymore because they are dangerous, but iirc there still are a few in operation in the former soviet bloc. The main reason they are used is because they can produce weapons grade materials.

But even if you add the worst case estimate of premature deaths because of the increase in cancer from the fallout (commonly cited as about 30k worst case), the failure of a hydro dam can be much more devastating; like the Banqiou dam failure in China which killed 171 000. Just try to imagine what happens if the yellow river dam fails! And worst of all: coal which kills many many more people than the other two combined (200k/year only in Europe) because of the air-pollution, and it gets worse if you also consider the mercury poisoning, ghg-emissions, ocean acidification etc. I would much rather live downwind of a nuclear power plant than a coal plant (or in the valley below a hydro dam).

It should also be noted that we're still dealing with the containment of Chernobyl. We haven't fixed or cleaned a lot, we've just built another dome over it to make it go away. That's essentially the same as stuffing it in a mine. It's probably naive to think the disaster as it happened didn't claim that many victims. We know the impact was quite significant as many times more were poisoned rather than killed, and we also know the Soviet Union did everything in its power to downplay the scale of the disaster. The same applies to Fukushima. The Japanese have been diligently downplaying the scale of the disaster and we don't have any real solutions to the problems they face. They just keep on building storage tank after storage tank to store the contaminated water used to cool the reactors, but it turns out those are already leaking water. Their "alternative" if filtering it a bit and dumping it into the sea while storing the highly radioactive sludge on-site. Those are not real solutions. It's moving the problem around.
No it isn't naive, it's what years of studies have concluded.

You are right that the Japanese government covered up the full extent of the accident in the beginning, and that is very unfortunate. Because of that we can't really be sure of all of the consequences yet which is why I haven't mentioned any numbers from Fukushima. I would be surprised if it's any worse than Chernobyl, and it would have to be many times worse than that to beat the Banqiao dam disaster or the continuous poisoning from coal power plants.

It's hard to say much about Fukushima when we don't have all the facts, but at the very least, if you see it as part of the overall damages that the tsunami caused it is almost negligible in comparison.

Still, we shouldn't continue using the old light water reactor designs either. They were developed because they were convenient for nuclear powered subs and ships. There are safer designs that would have avoided the Fukushima accident. The pebble bed reactor or the thorium molten salt reactors are both more fuel efficient and a lot safer (they shut down gracefully in the event of a complete power failure). Unfortunately they never became popular because they didn't have the same military potential.

If we're not serious about the problems we're already seeing, we're just asking for some more.
The problem is we are ignoring the dangers from coal and gas. We are filtering out gnats, yet swallowing camels. It's completely irrational. Nuclear is not perfect, but it is the safest power-type we have today. (Solar and wind is great but it still can't replace coal).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 19, 2018, 11:08:50 pm
We should be focusing on things like better batteries and other storage methods to store the substantial amounts of solar energy that go to waste due to it being generated during the daytime and summer - Once we simply solve that one problem a lot of other issues become much more manageable.
Right, simple: just invent some new super battery! Not so simple I suspect. Might not even be possible. Even if it is, who knows when the breakthrough comes. Nuclear is proven existing technology. Super batteries is wishful thinking.

Actually that's wrong. We are currently using super batteries, when compared with the batteries of, say, 40 years ago.

Batteries and other technologies (hydro, flywheels, etc etc etc) have been evaluated for many decades - and been found to be insufficient. I remember my father formally assessing them in the late 70s / early 80s when he worked at the Central Electricity Research Labs.
That is a good point. Technological progress is a great thing and we should spend more on research and less on stupid wars, reality shows and such. But science and tech isn't magic, it's not possible to pull everything we wish for out of a hat. Until we have a working prototype it's just wishful thinking to say "in the future when we have these super super batteries it won't be a problem". We have to base our decisions on what exist today. We need electricity now and while I love solar and think it should be expanded as much as possible, it just can not completely replace coal and gas yet.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 19, 2018, 11:25:44 pm
About the waste management, I still believe it's a problem. AFAIK so far every attempt at long term storage has failed in a way or another, so there is absolutely nothing to make me believe that the next one will magically work.
It hasn't failed, it's never been implemented because the anti nuclear lobby keeps stalling, demanding more studies and insurances. It's impossible to prove something is 100% safe (and nothing is 100% safe either) so you can always demand another study just to be a little more certain it's safe.

On the other hand it's not a big problem storing it as we do now, because there is so little produced compared to the energy generated. It probably makes nuclear power more expensive than it has to be though, since the operators has to pay for the temporary storage facilities as well.

Also regarding the waste issue, I remember hearing some years ago Mr Putin promised significant R&D effort into nuclear waste reprocessing, investments at Mayak reprosessing facility etc. Great goal was to develop closed fuel cycle so no radioactive waste is left to dispose of. But he may be out of money, as always.
Interesting, haven't heard about that. Current generation reactors are very inefficient, only using a few percent of the fuel. There are many proposals of how you could reprocess the waste so you get more energy out of it and at the same time you get rid of most of the waste. Haven't heard of any such facility being in use though.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 20, 2018, 12:03:49 am
We should be very careful, absolutely, but exaggerating the risks is also bad. In the 60's they definitely had a overly rosy view of the risks involved. The US-airforce even wanted to build a nuclear powered bomber... talk about flying disaster waiting to happen. :palm: Luckily it's not even technically feasible otherwise it probably would have existed today. In the 60's they also thought dumping mercury a few km off the coast was a great way to get rid of industrial waste. That was incredibly stupid, no argument there, and we are suffering for it today.

But that is not the problem now. Look at the graphs posted before: the only energy types that are decreasing are nuclear and oil. Oil because we are running out of it, nuclear because people are overly afraid of it due to all the scare mongering. We are replacing nuclear with coal, that is a huge problem. Air pollution from coal power plants is a far far grater health issue than radiation from Chernobyl or Fukushima combined. If you extrapolate from the Swedish study I mentioned before you get that coal kills about 200k (prematurely) every year in Europe, compare that to the estimates of 30k (worst case) from Chernobyl. A nuclear power plant can blow up every year and it will still cause less health problems than the air pollution from coal does. Add to that the environmental effects from coal such as acidification and mercury poisoning, or the greenhouse gas emissions, and it should be blatantly obvious to any rational person that it is coal we should be getting rid of, not nuclear. It's not that nuclear is 100% safe, it's that the alternatives are far worse (even hydro is more dangerous).

Yes, as I wrote: the waste is dangerous (radioactive) for ever, that is a given by the nature of an exponentially decreasing function: it never reaches 0. However, the radioactivity goes down quickly in the beginning, it's not constant, it's not even linear. For most of the infamous millennia the waste is only weakly radioactive. So when people claim it will be super dangerous for millennia they are being dishonest.

Besides, something being dangerous forever is common; take mercury for example, it's also dangerous for all eternity. At least nuclear waste becomes (almost) harmless after a millennia. Yet no-one is talking about the mercury storage problem.

I never said the waste is safe after a hundred years. It is not, it is still 10 times as radioactive as the fresh fuel. But think about what that means: we dig up uranium from a mine, refine it and use it as fuel. When we take it out of the reactor again it has become much more radioactive, and so we need to store it somewhere safe, a geologically stable location far underground for example. After a 100 years, it will be about 10 times as radioactive as the new fuel. But if 10% of the 100 year old spent fuel leak out into the old mine again, the net change in radioactivity in the mine will be zero! The math is simple enough. None of it should ever leak of course, containment vessels are designed to last for millennia. This is just to put things into perspective. If it did leak it wouldn't be particularly dangerous.

Of course you shouldn't store waste in a volcano, or an area with earthquakes, just like you shouldn't store other dangerous substances in a volcano. You pick a geologically stable area to store it in and then back-fill the mine so no-one gets in there by mistake. A few km under ground is far outside the biosphere, nothing living will get in contact with it. A small amount of highly radioactive solids that are stored a few km under ground isn't a threat to anyone, it really isn't a problem.

It's these kind of exaggerations and scare mongering that is the real problem.

The danger with nuclear is that you get radioactive smoke particles that spread over a huge area. It is impossible to contain or clean up. That is what happened after Chernobyl. The radioactive fallout from Chernobyl rained down all over Europe (mostly here in Sweden actually). Some of the radioactive elements accumulate in crops and food animals and thus we get a tiny increase in radiation dose compared to if it hadn't happened. For the individual it isn't noticeable, you get higher dosage from a dental x-ray. But if you integrate it over all the people exposed over time (and make worst case assumptions) it's still bad since so many are affected.

I'm sure Chernobyl could have been somewhat worse if most of the fallout ended up over Europe's more densely populated areas. What does "riskier to live in" mean here (we will never know because those "may have" figures was just pulled out of someones behind) but it probably would not be riskier than living in e.g. Denver (which is naturally relatively radioactive). It's a very deceptive and misleading statement. There are people living even inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone today that never left, they are doing just fine. The remaining reactors at the Chernobyl power-plant are still in operation today, people go there to work as we speak!

It really was a disaster though, about 100 deaths can be linked directly to the accident and they had to evacuate the nearby town. Most of those who died were the firefighters, etc, who were first at site and who weren't informed about the risks involved by the authorities at the time. There shouldn't be any Chernobyl-type reactors anymore because they are dangerous, but iirc there still are a few in operation in the former soviet bloc. The main reason they are used is because they can produce weapons grade materials.

But even if you add the worst case estimate of premature deaths because of the increase in cancer from the fallout (commonly cited as about 30k worst case), the failure of a hydro dam can be much more devastating; like the Banqiou dam failure in China which killed 171 000. Just try to imagine what happens if the yellow river dam fails! And worst of all: coal which kills many many more people than the other two combined (200k/year only in Europe) because of the air-pollution, and it gets worse if you also consider the mercury poisoning, ghg-emissions, ocean acidification etc. I would much rather live downwind of a nuclear power plant than a coal plant (or in the valley below a hydro dam).

No it isn't naive, it's what years of studies have concluded.

You are right that the Japanese government covered up the full extent of the accident in the beginning, and that is very unfortunate. Because of that we can't really be sure of all of the consequences yet which is why I haven't mentioned any numbers from Fukushima. I would be surprised if it's any worse than Chernobyl, and it would have to be many times worse than that to beat the Banqiao dam disaster or the continuous poisoning from coal power plants.

It's hard to say much about Fukushima when we don't have all the facts, but at the very least, if you see it as part of the overall damages that the tsunami caused it is almost negligible in comparison.

Still, we shouldn't continue using the old light water reactor designs either. They were developed because they were convenient for nuclear powered subs and ships. There are safer designs that would have avoided the Fukushima accident. The pebble bed reactor or the thorium molten salt reactors are both more fuel efficient and a lot safer (they shut down gracefully in the event of a complete power failure). Unfortunately they never became popular because they didn't have the same military potential.

The problem is we are ignoring the dangers from coal and gas. We are filtering out gnats, yet swallowing camels. It's completely irrational. Nuclear is not perfect, but it is the safest power-type we have today. (Solar and wind is great but it still can't replace coal).

I could write a point for point reply, but I won't as it would essentially turn into my previous post. You still have an overly rosy view on the problems and risks associated with nuclear waste. If you don't research and accept the facts, your conclusions are obviously going to be off. There are many major and minor examples of the quoted facts being inaccurate or outright untrue, like how the Chernobyl plant is reportedly still active while it has been retired years ago now or how dangerous waste products will be after a certain period of time. Calling estimates made by experts based on available data "pulled out of someone's behind" isn't going to fly either.

That we've dodged the real bullets in Chernobyl and Fukushima doesn't mean those near-disasters didn't almost happen. You can't just point at the body count released by Soviet propaganda and pretend that's all there's to it. It's obviously not. Pretending hydro power is more dangerous is just silly. No dam ever nearly blew half of Europe into oblivion or could do such a thing, or laid waste to similar areas for millennia. Water can be pretty devastating, but not nearly that devastating. Downplaying the disaster that Chernobyl almost was isn't going to fly. Like it or not, a much bigger disaster was narrowly averted. What did get released was relatively harmless and an extremely violent explosion was narrowly averted. That's not conjecture or really up for debate. Despite having avoided the actual disaster the impact has been fairly sobering. The WHO reports elevated levels of thyroid cancer and other radiation related health issues and expects the effects to last well into the future. That's not exactly "getting an X-ray" territory.

Your reasoning how nuclear waste isn't dangerous after a relatively short period of time doesn't hold water either. In my previous post I've showed most waste products have half-lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. You seem to think we don't understand radiation disappears exponentially, but the problem is that with these kinds of half-lives it still takes many millennia to be anything other than acutely dangerous. Pretending stuffing it into a deep mine will solve things is dangerous hubris too. Every time we think we keep it "out of the way", yet it always comes back to bite us. Walls crack, concrete crumbles, mines flood and materials get shifted by unsuspecting or nefarious people. Just this week news broke about how the deep underground is essentially a huge and diverse biosphere. Oops, we just poisoned and contaminated an unknown biosphere, with the potential of the biosphere moving materials around. Once more we thought things would be fine and they turn out to not be. Dumping it somewhere and pretending it doesn't exist has so far proven to be a terrible "solution", so simply trying it once more is hubris of the worst kind. Besides, waste can't be just dumped into a hole. It stays hot for very long times and needs to be stored and cooled appropriately, which means keeping it above ground.

I imagine this becoming a "is so" "nah-uh" discussion as it kind of already is, so unless there's some significant sources with new information introduced I'll refer to this and my previous post.


Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 20, 2018, 12:22:27 am
the Chernobyl plant is reportedly still active while it has been retired years ago now
You are right about the Chernobyl plant being decommissioned now, sorry about that, I've read outdated information at some time. But the last reactor wasn't closed until 2000 so my point is still valid: people continued to work there for many years after the accident. It's not like you couldn't go near the site, live there or work there.

If you don't research and accept the facts, your conclusions are obviously going to be off. There are many major and minor examples of the quoted facts being inaccurate or outright untrue
Right, how convenient for you. The only one providing facts and discussing data is me, you just try and see if you can find some mistake I've made to discredit me and then insinuate that everything I say is inaccurate.

How about you responding to my arguments instead. Why is death from radiation worse than death from water or death from air-pollution? What are the relevant numbers? Isn't it true that far more people die because of hydro electric and coal?

The WHO reports elevated levels of thyroid cancer and other radiation related health issues and expects the effects to last well into the future. That's not exactly "getting an X-ray" territory.
Of course the WHO says there are increase in cancer risk, that is the problem with radiation, no one claims otherwise? If you get an x-ray you also get an increase in cancer risk. The question is how big the risk is and how many are affected.

The dosage for the wast majority of people exposed are below x-ray territory. The large death count often cited is just because the fallout affects so many people. Of course, some people living very near the reactor might have gotten somewhat higher dosages:
Quote
Another UN Chernobyl Forum report from the following year, Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes, gives a total of 5,000 for the excess cancer deaths “predicted” for the inhabitants of the contaminated areas. This is consistent with the 2005 report, as it represents about a 0.5% increase in cancer mortality.
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated (https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated)

So, for those with the highest exposure there is an "predicted" additional 5000 deaths. That is included in the about 30 000 "predicted" total. It doesn't change the fact that 171000 dead from a single hydro dam failure is much worse, or the ~200k deaths yearly (in Europe) because of coal power air-pollution.

Quote
That we've dodged the real bullets in Chernobyl and Fukushima doesn't mean those near-disasters didn't almost happen.
Saying we dodged the bullet with Chernobyl is very dishonest (and fukushima as well now ???), it can't be proved or disproved, it's a bullshit argument. Give me real data and we can discuss it. What we know have happened since nuclear power was invented is that there have been two major accidents: Chernobyl and Fukushima. That's data we can discuss and compare, just like the failed Banqiao dam or the air-pollution from coal power plants.

And again: I would be the first to protest if someone wants to build another Chernobyl type reactor, or even light water reactor, there are many safer designs that could have avoided those accidents.

You talk about dodged bullets and "what if" there is some boogeyman we haven't thought about that makes waste storage unsafe. With that kind of reasoning we couldn't do anything. What if the yellow river dam fails? What if the Hoover dam fails? What if there is some risk with coal power we haven't thought about?

With air-pollution from coal power plants we aren't dodging any bullets, we are sucking it in right now as we speak.

I imagine this becoming a "is so" "nah-uh" discussion as it kind of already is, so unless there's some significant sources with new information introduced I'll refer to this and my previous post.
Indeed, can't argue with you if you are unwilling to discuss the facts.

Your reasoning how nuclear waste isn't dangerous after a relatively short period of time doesn't hold water either.
As I've said many times now, it will be dangerous for ever, just like a lot of other dangerous substances. But it will be far less dangerous already after a few hundred years. I'm trying to put things into perspective. The waste problem has been solved a long time ago. But now I'm just repeating myself...

(http://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/0b9acd68-f5cd-479e-8333-e2197d83327c/SpentFuelRadioactivity-(new)_1.gif.aspx)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTe3VknVklkTklvg0q2rQY7EYNIorZj7tsv_Q71Sot94fv5j__DAQ)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 20, 2018, 01:01:03 am
You are right about the Chernobyl plant being decommissioned now, sorry about that I've read outdated information at some time, but the last reactor wasn't closed until 2000 so the main point is still valid. People worked there for many years after the accident. It's not like you couldn't go near the site, live there or work there.

Indeed, can't argue with you if you just make things up and refuse too look into the facts. Saying we dodged the bullet with Chernobyl is very dishonest, it can't be proved or disproved, it's a bullshit argument. Just give me the facts instead.

Sure the WHO says there are increase in cancer risk, that is the problem with radiation, no-one denies that. But if you get an x-ray you also get an increase in cancer risk. The question is how big the risk increase is and how many are affected.

What most people don't get is that you have to compare those risks with the alternative, coal, and the risks from coal are far worse. The WHO usually use the 30k estimated deaths from Chernobyl figure iirc, how is that worse than 171000 deaths from a hydro-dam failing? Why is death from radiation worse than death from air-pollution?
This reaction illustrates the point I made fairly well, to be honest. It's not just the information about the plant being shut down, it's not knowing all kinds of basic information about nuclear power and the Chernobyl and Fukushima disaster in particular. It really is no wonder no sound assessment of the risks of nuclear power can be made if you know so little about it or how it may go wrong. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Saying we dodged the bullet with Chernobyl is dishonest? Have you looked into this? How the events unfolded and how a steam explosion was prevented is very well documented and not disputed and although we can't exactly be sure how big the resulting explosion would have been, experts agree on that it would have been massive compared to what we know as the Chernobyl disaster. It's quite possible to ascertain what would have been from our understanding of physics, the energies involved and the situation as it was. I'm not sure how that can be called dishonest, other than it not fitting your narrative and being inconvenient. Surely you're not arguing we should value your estimation of the resulting disaster above those of actual nuclear experts and people researching the subject extensively?

Meanwhile, pretending it's just an increase in cancer risk is actually dishonest. The WHO reports that thousands of people have been found to suffer from cancer in the disaster area. This is reported to be a statistically significantly higher number than normally expected and detected elsewhere. Thousands of actual people have been getting actual cancer, while the risk of cancer from getting an X-ray exists in theory but has never been statistically proven. They can't really be compared, unless you're of course trying to downplay the effects of the nuclear disaster as it was. We're not even talking about the disaster it could have been yet and the massive amounts of much more radioactive material that would have been spread far and wide.

I do agree though, deaths from coal are bad as well. I'm not opposed to nuclear power as such. However, considering people can't seem to handle the risks it seems we should ban both. Another wrong doesn't make a right.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 20, 2018, 02:12:00 am
Meanwhile, pretending it's just an increase in cancer risk is actually dishonest. The WHO reports that thousands of people have been found to suffer from cancer in the disaster area. This is reported to be a statistically significantly higher number than normally expected and detected elsewhere. Thousands of actual people have been getting actual cancer, while the risk of cancer from getting an X-ray exists in theory but has never been statistically proven. They can't really be compared, unless you're of course trying to downplay the effects of the nuclear disaster as it was. We're not even talking about the disaster it could have been yet and the massive amounts of much more radioactive material that would have been spread far and wide.
No cancer from X-ray? that's a good one. Most calculations of the number of premature deaths (cancer) because of Chernobyl (the 30 000 projected deaths I've mentioned) is based on the LNT-hypothesis (Linear No Treshold), which basically means they extrapolate linearly the risk of getting cancer from very low dosages based on data from very high dosages. If you want to limit yourself to cancer that can be directly linked to radiation from Chernobyl the figure is much lower than that (a few thousand at most), so that just makes my argument much stronger: nuclear is safer than hydro electric and much much safer than coal.

(And sorry, I messed up my previous post, seem to have posted it prematurely while editing somehow.)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 20, 2018, 02:37:27 am
I had another reply typed up and posted but at this point we're going around in circles, so I'm going to leave it here. It's not as if anyone is going to change their mind and I doubt the other forum members get much out of the discussion. I hope you'll continue looking into the matter and are prepared to keep an open mind if you do. Best of luck.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 20, 2018, 04:12:28 am
No cancer from X-ray? that's a good one. Most calculations of the number of premature deaths (cancer) because of Chernobyl (the 30 000 projected deaths I've mentioned) is based on the LNT-hypothesis (Linear No Treshold), which basically means they extrapolate linearly the risk of getting cancer from very low dosages based on data from very high dosages. If you want to limit yourself to cancer that can be directly linked to radiation from Chernobyl the figure is much lower than that (a few thousand at most), so that just makes my argument much stronger: nuclear is safer than hydro electric and much much safer than coal.

(And sorry, I messed up my previous post, seem to have posted it prematurely while editing somehow.)
It's statistical significance versus no statistical significance. It's pretty straightforward. Claiming you're "the only one providing facts and discussing data" is once more dishonest. I needed to bring up various well known and documented events or facts that you were seemingly unaware of and which you still seem to contest. Only now you seem to start to do some research to find the evidence to prove the point you already established before doing the research. Experience tells me that people who approach a discussion in this way tend to endlessly argue their point and never concede or adjust their opinion. It's only a bitter rubbing of the ego. I hope I'm proven wrong this time.
If you claim x-rays doesn't cause cancer you have to apply the same logic to the fallout from Chernobyl which then for the most part suddenly becomes harmless and the projected death counts would have to be lowered drastically. That just means my main point (that nuclear is safer than hydro and coal) is even more valid. People usually argue we should use the LNT-hypothesis since it's a reasonable worst case estimation as long as we don't know better. That is a valid argument but then you have to remember that those figures are worst case.

I've done the research many years ago and read up on it every now and then. I might remember something wrong, but the major points are corrects as far as I know. I'm providing facts and numbers that can easily be verified (except the deaths from coal air pollution which is mysteriously hard to find). Hypotheticals and the risk of unknowns are hard to debate.

Insisting the waste problem is solved is a joke. We have solved nothing at all. Even if there waste were to be only properly dangerous for a few hundred years, we don't really have good examples of institutions reliably being active on comparable time scales. We don't have a solutions for the waste either. We could dump it into the ground and pretend it's not there, but that's not a solution. We dumped it into the sea before because the thought it'd go away and we dumped it into other places and it never actually went away. Every time it became a head-ache due to oversights. Now we discovered that the deep Earth crust is actually a rich biotope. So much for dumping it out of the way in a place it can't possibly do harm. Silly humans and their hubris. Saying the waste problem is solved is like saying fossil fuels don't cause problems because we have chimneys to put the waste into the air, or plastic waste isn't an issue because we have oceans to safely tuck it away. That's what people actually thought and we all know how much of a success that was. Let's all make the same mistakes again. This time it can't go wrong.
A rich biotope? There are maybe some bacteria down there but it doesn't matter if some bacteria gets killed.

Why isn't "dumping" it deep in the earths crust a solution? Saying there might be some unknown is an argument you could use against doing anything.

Looks like the Finnish are going to beat us to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBS-3

There is a real danger with nuclear. When you get radioactive smoke and fallout over a large area it eventually ends up in food and thus becomes a health hazard. It's hard to tell what the situation is in Fukushima, but they seem to have problem with radioactive water leaking out. It's similar problem then: it eventually gets into food (fish) which then become a health hazard I would guess. Those risks shouldn't be underestimated, but they shouldn't be exaggerated either.

Quote
I've already responded to the other arguments you ask me to respond to. I refer you to my previous posts. Look for the real disaster that was avoided in Chernobyl and coal being a wrong that doesn't make nuclear waste a right.
Ok, so we agree that coal is worse than nuclear? You are right that it doesn't make nuclear harmless. But what is the alternative that can realistically replace coal today then?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 20, 2018, 04:22:43 am
Unfortunately you didn't catch the edit of my previous post in time. I'm going to leave it at that.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 20, 2018, 11:05:47 pm
Meanwhile, pretending it's just an increase in cancer risk is actually dishonest. The WHO reports that thousands of people have been found to suffer from cancer in the disaster area. This is reported to be a statistically significantly higher number than normally expected and detected elsewhere. Thousands of actual people have been getting actual cancer, while the risk of cancer from getting an X-ray exists in theory but has never been statistically proven. They can't really be compared, unless you're of course trying to downplay the effects of the nuclear disaster as it was. We're not even talking about the disaster it could have been yet and the massive amounts of much more radioactive material that would have been spread far and wide.
But then many people get health problems from power plants burning coal. Look at this website which shows the SO2 concentration world wide:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=108.72,33.63,401 (https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=108.72,33.63,401)
Millions of people die due to air polution:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843953/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843953/)

Nuclear versus coal is like airplane versus traffic. An airplane accident kills a lot of people at once and yet it is one of the safest ways to travel.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 21, 2018, 12:08:44 am
The build up of mercury pollution in the environment is the worst thing about burning coal. Elemental mercury has always been in the environment, and it builds up in all plants, in varying amounts. It cycles between different states, a process called mercury flux. Its a powerfully pro-oxidant toxicant. Unfortunately coal contains mercury in varying amounts and there really is no way to scrub it out when its burned effectively enough to be safe. As if that wasnt bad enough methylmercury is much worse, MeHG is a very potent neurotoxin thats produced when mercury is in the environment. Another property of mercury, its depleting of glutathione, is likely causing a lot of health problems directly also, because of a problem with the expression of Fyn and c-Cbl and an effect of those changes on the process of cell differentiation in a developing nervous system.

So we have to find other means of powering our society besides coal. mercury levels in some parts of the US and northern Europe are higher than they have ever been, and thats very bad.

But no, I dont think coal is worse than nuclear fission because of the ultimate heat sink problems which have caused multiple simultaneous meltdowns when cooling was interrupted. And the long term persistence of radiation after nuclear disasters.

We should cut usage of energy as our #1 goal. Here in the US would you believe they let a corporation (GM) privatize and then dismantle what was once the best public transit system in the world? Leading to my country's current problems of dependence on cheap oil.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 21, 2018, 12:36:33 am
The build up of mercury pollution in the environment is the worst thing about burning coal.

Nonsense.

The buildup of CO2 is the worst problem.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 21, 2018, 01:08:40 am
We should cut usage of energy as our #1 goal.
I don't disagree with that, but while we wait for that to happen we need alternatives to coal. We should choose the safest alternative, which is solar, but solar can only replace a part of it (sun doesn't shine during night and less during winter), so we still need a lot of nuclear for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 21, 2018, 08:18:37 am
We should cut usage of energy as our #1 goal.
I don't disagree with that, but while we wait for that to happen we need alternatives to coal. We should choose the safest alternative, which is solar, but solar can only replace a part of it (sun doesn't shine during night and less during winter), so we still need a lot of nuclear for the foreseeable future.

Just so. Not difficult really.

You can add wind power into that, in the UK at least, since the mantra "if the wind isn't blowing her then it is blowing there" is simply false. As a rule of thumb, the aggregate UK wind power will be <1% of rated power for 3 days per year. When a "blocking high pressure" sits over the UK there is low wind which can last for weeks. That's beyond any known capacity to store the energy. No, pumped hydro in the UK isn't and won't be suffcient.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 21, 2018, 09:43:59 am
The build up of mercury pollution in the environment is the worst thing about burning coal.

Nonsense.

The buildup of CO2 is the worst problem.
No. The effects of CO2 are nothing more than a nuisance. WE humans see it as a problem because rising sea levels and changing weather patterns will reduce the amount of available land to live on, damage harvest and damage buildings. But in the grand sceme of things it isn't the worst that has ever happened.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 21, 2018, 02:18:33 pm
I think (hope) he was being sarcastic, as in CO2 being the only thing that's constantly being bashed in our face by the media, ignoring said more important problems...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 21, 2018, 08:58:04 pm
The build up of mercury pollution in the environment is the worst thing about burning coal.

Nonsense.

The buildup of CO2 is the worst problem.
No. The effects of CO2 are nothing more than a nuisance. WE humans see it as a problem because rising sea levels and changing weather patterns will reduce the amount of available land to live on, damage harvest and damage buildings. But in the grand sceme of things it isn't the worst that has ever happened.

Sigh. The context isn't "ever", it is "environmental damage from burning coal".
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 21, 2018, 09:42:16 pm
We should cut usage of energy as our #1 goal.
I don't disagree with that, but while we wait for that to happen we need alternatives to coal. We should choose the safest alternative, which is solar, but solar can only replace a part of it (sun doesn't shine during night and less during winter), so we still need a lot of nuclear for the foreseeable future.

The problem with nuclear it that it take a lot of time to get new power stations: it takes many years to build new nuclear and the current capacities to do so are very limited as there are very few source for the large steel parts needed to build the pressure vessel. Currently they don't even keep up with the rate the old units are shut down. So too little too late to really help with replacing coal. Nuclear also turn out to be rather expensive in many examples. The US mainly stopped building new nuclear for economic reasons.

It is only a few countries that really still need there nuclear power (mainly France) for some time. Even Japan managed to not go dark essentially without nuclear for a few years.

It is still a difficult question weather it is better to shut down nuclear or coal first.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 21, 2018, 10:24:11 pm
We should cut usage of energy as our #1 goal.
I don't disagree with that, but while we wait for that to happen we need alternatives to coal. We should choose the safest alternative, which is solar, but solar can only replace a part of it (sun doesn't shine during night and less during winter), so we still need a lot of nuclear for the foreseeable future.
The problem with nuclear it that it take a lot of time to get new power stations: it takes many years to build new nuclear and the current capacities to do so are very limited as there are very few source for the large steel parts needed to build the pressure vessel. Currently they don't even keep up with the rate the old units are shut down. So too little too late to really help with replacing coal. Even Japan managed to not go dark essentially without nuclear for a few years.
But not forever. The longer governments wait with building new nuclear power plants the longer electricity will be made from burning coal. It really is simple as that. We just have to wait a little bit longer until that reality sinks in. That process has already started.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 21, 2018, 11:44:47 pm
Even if they really want too, building lots of new nuclear would be a really hard task: It's not just building the power plants, but also new mines, new enrichment, new zirconium refinement and new steel plants to get the large forgings needed. 
As it would not be cost efficient only for a intermediate solution, very little private money would go there.
With nuclear there is also a high investment up front - so it needs that capital. Printing more dollars would not help here - it's about real money.

The needed resources are spread around the world - so if let's say the Japanese don't want to build more pants for the large steel parts, other countries would first need to develop that technology, or build the Russian Chernobyl type reactor that gets away without it - though at a price. This is not only safety, but also proliferation.  Zirconium supply could be tricky too, if some large resource countries decide against large scale nuclear. At least Germany and Japan are against more nuclear and this already slows down the speed new plants could be build. Because of the possible long range effects they may not want to provide key components for others to build new nuclear. China has also decided to go slow on nuclear and there is hardly a company left to build new nuclear in the west.

So chances are there is no more coal left to burn before there would be a significant number of new nuclear power plants.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 21, 2018, 11:52:44 pm
Even Japan managed to not go dark essentially without nuclear for a few years.
Yeah by importing and burning massive amounts of coal, which precisely defeats the whole purpose of doing without nuclear.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 02:59:59 am
Even if they really want too, building lots of new nuclear would be a really hard task
That may be true, which is depressing. But at least people could stop decommissioning nuclear power plants prematurely (for emotional reasons) and replacing them with coal and gas. There is some expansion potential; I vaguely remember someone saying you could expand nuclear about 5% over the next 30 years. Nuclear could at least be part of the mix for a while longer, while we replace coal and wait for the promised super storage solutions.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 22, 2018, 11:33:40 am
Germany is shutting down some nuclear plants down a little earlier than original planed. However so far this were mainly the rather old ones or those that caused problems more often. They are not replaced by more coal, but to a large part by more renewable energy (e.g. wind and PV).  However they could have shut down some coal fired power plants instead. Still nuclear tends to be less flexible than coal.

It is anyway less a problem of shutting down relatively new nuclear plants but more about the nuclear plants from the 1980s, that now start to reach there regular end of life (usually 40 years).  So it's the question of extending the run-time beyond the initial plans and possibly spend extra money to upgrade the safety.  In Belgium they even considered to extend the permit for a reactor that has known issues, that should normally have stopped them from starting the reactor from the beginning. The problem here is that they don't have a good replacement. This somewhat contradicts the safety concepts of the reactors that assumes the reactors to be shut down if a safety issue comes up and needs to be fixed. So let's hope the old reactor will not blow up in it's last years.  :(

So in this sense nuclear can't be safe and secure (always available) at the same time.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 22, 2018, 02:21:39 pm
But then many people get health problems from power plants burning coal. Look at this website which shows the SO2 concentration world wide:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=108.72,33.63,401 (https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=108.72,33.63,401)
Millions of people die due to air polution:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843953/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843953/)

Nuclear versus coal is like airplane versus traffic. An airplane accident kills a lot of people at once and yet it is one of the safest ways to travel.
An aircraft crash doesn't make the surroundings uninhabitable for extended periods of time. And once more, two wrongs don't make a right.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 04:10:49 pm
But then many people get health problems from power plants burning coal. Look at this website which shows the SO2 concentration world wide:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=108.72,33.63,401 (https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=108.72,33.63,401)
Millions of people die due to air polution:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843953/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843953/)

Nuclear versus coal is like airplane versus traffic. An airplane accident kills a lot of people at once and yet it is one of the safest ways to travel.
An aircraft crash doesn't make the surroundings uninhabitable for extended periods of time. And once more, two wrongs don't make a right.
This isn't about two wrongs making a right. It is about statistics. Besides that large chemical spills (Bhopal anyone?) can also make a large piece of land too toxic to live on.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 04:58:29 pm
I found and saved this a while ago, its a pretty interesting read on the concept/racket of trading "rights to pollute" .

Kyoto's 'flexible mechanisms' and the right to pollute the air

http://www.globalgovernance.de/pdfs/cc6_web_AB.pdf (http://www.globalgovernance.de/pdfs/cc6_web_AB.pdf)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 05:50:40 pm
It is anyway less a problem of shutting down relatively new nuclear plants but more about the nuclear plants from the 1980s, that now start to reach there regular end of life (usually 40 years).  So it's the question of extending the run-time beyond the initial plans and possibly spend extra money to upgrade the safety.  In Belgium they even considered to extend the permit for a reactor that has known issues, that should normally have stopped them from starting the reactor from the beginning.
It's the same here and it's because of anti-nuclear crowd has made it impossible to build new reactors, so the only way to keep going is to patch the old ones. They keep demanding higher security standards and taxes for nuclear which makes it less economical compared to coal. It would be fine if coal and hydro also had to pay for it's own side effects but that isn't the case of course. There's even a de facto research ban on nuclear power technology here in Sweden. It's sad because if we had continued developing nuclear today's ghg emission problem might have been much easier to solve.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 22, 2018, 06:17:39 pm
Even without all the costs included nuclear had an economic problem. It is just to expensive to compete with something like natural gas. The other problems like the long term waste are just the topping on the cake or another bullet to an already dead horse.  :horse:.

Globally nuclear never was more than a side note and not significant in reducing emissions. It was more like delaying other research by promising things it could not hold. So some BS detector seem to have failed there.

The probably the best that can be done with nuclear power is to make clear it was a bad idea and will not help much in solving the emission problems. One might still run the few well working pants for there planed life and take that little in saved emissions as a small compensation for all the money spend.  Keeping up the false hope that there may be some magic new type of nuclear than can solve the emission problems is doing quite some harm, as it slows down the search for working alternatives. Currently nuclear is coals best friend.  :-DD
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 06:55:17 pm
Well... then tell us what the alternative is. I agree with Apis and on top of that I'm quite sure we will continue to burn coal and gas until nuclear has caught up.

You shouldn't forget that in France over 70% of the electricity comes from nuclear power plants. France isn't a particulary small country either so at least France shows it is very possible to get a significant amount of power from nuclear energy.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 07:21:54 pm
Globally nuclear never was more than a side note and not significant in reducing emissions. It was more like delaying other research by promising things it could not hold. So some BS detector seem to have failed there.
Mine just gave a strong beep so it seems to be working fine, but maybe you were talking about your own. Compare emissions from countries that use a lot of nuclear, like France or Sweden, and those that does not, like Australia, and it becomes clear that nuclear can make a big difference.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?year_high_desc=true (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?year_high_desc=true)

(Ironically Australia being the the third largest producer of nuclear fuel: "In 2017 Australia produced 6937 tonnes of U3O8 (5882 tU). It is the world's third-ranking producer, behind Kazakhstan and Canada. All production is exported. Uranium comprises about one-quarter of energy exports." http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/australia.aspx (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/australia.aspx) )

We are going to need electric power in the future too, whether people like it or not. The countries with superpower ambitions are never going to abandon it either because their military depends on it. (It should be self evident that the ones in ships and the bombs are what people should worry about if anything, yet what we are discussing is civilian nuclear).

The other problems like the long term waste are just the topping on the cake or another bullet to an already dead horse.  :horse:.
It's a boogeyman to scare the children with. As I've pointed out the nuclear waste is a solved problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository)

There is so little produced per watt that all the waste produced in the Netherlands can be stored in a single building:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Covra_het_gebouw.JPG)
Scary, isn't it?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 22, 2018, 08:33:04 pm
In many places PV and wind are considerably cheaper than nuclear. Even with something like 50% lost on storage (e.g. hydrogen) it can be a good alternative. Improvements on the storage part would be definitely good to make is more practical. It likely won't be as cheap as coal - but chances are good to compete with nuclear when it comes to price.

France has some 70% nuclear, but the problems now start to show up: in summer they have to shut down some capacity because of lacking cooling water. In winter there capacity is not enough. So at times they have to import quite a lot of electricity from other source.  With many stations now getting old and decommissioning more expensive than thought there is also a financial problem - there is essentially not enough money for the required replacement reactors to keep the 70%. The nuclear contribution is plant to go down to below 50%.

The building for storing the nuclear waste looks like expensive to keep up for the next 100000 years or so - especially in the Netherlands with likely rising see level.  I know there are a lot of irrational fears about the waste storage, but there are still a few real problems to it. One is that the costs come up in the future - this requires confidence in a stable society at least for the next lets say 20-40 years, before the waste can go to a reasonable "final" storage. I consider the technical side solvable, but have doubt with the social / political side.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 08:36:20 pm
In many places PV and wind are considerably cheaper than nuclear. Even with something like 50% lost on storage (e.g. hydrogen) it can be a good alternative. Improvements on the storage part would be definitely good to make is more practical. It likely won't be as cheap as coal - but chances are good to compete with nuclear when it comes to price.
But those storage technologies don't exist yet. Electricity from nuclear does exist. Recently I saw a video from a Dutch scientist saying we could do without nuclear. I was pleasantly surprised that storage was mentioned in the video. However when the video was over I was still left with the question on how the storage for electricity from solar and wind would work exactly. Without knowing how the storage is going to take place you don't know the price. Currently nuclear, gas and coal are the batteries for solar and wind but those costs aren't factored into the price of electricity from solar and wind. IOW: solar and wind are made to look cheap artificially.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on December 22, 2018, 08:47:15 pm
When all is said and done, solar and wind still save on fuel. It doesn't do nothing useful, it's just rather expensive (when including the cost of fossil fuel backup).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 08:48:52 pm
When all is said and done, solar and wind still save on fuel. It doesn't do nothing useful, it's just rather expensive (when including the cost of fossil fuel backup).
I never said solar and wind aren't useful but they do have their limitations. Storage is one but capacity is the other.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 09:24:22 pm
Nuclear energy is being made to look cheap artificially. Don't fall for it.

The question to ask is, who ends up footing the bill for a nuclear accident? We all do. And it could be world changing in the case of a solar storm. Nctnico, I've repeatedly tried to explain the problem with the loss of the ultimate heat sink and nuclear fission reactors - the issue that caused the multiple meltdowns at Fukushima. Do you understand what Ive been trying to explain there? Why its a serious problem we need to address far better than we have before we go back to creating lots more 'hot' nuclear waste that has to be cooled?

Don't trust people who claim to be experts who shrug off this potential problem.

Also, be aware that as the global economy cools off (deindustrialization) due to the shift to automation - its likely to get harder and harder to make the insane profit margins that some entities demand as their keep.

Are they above creating crises themselves? No? Are you sure?

Okay, here is what could spark a huge REAL crisis in this area. A solar storm like the "Carrington" one in 1859. (Named after the scientist who discovered it) It would go like this. A huge solar flare would erupt, sending charged particles right at the Earth. If it was detected we would have a very short time minutes, to remove thousands of power transformers from the grid and shut it down. Shut down the power and pull the plugs, everywhere. Would that happen properly? lets look at other emergencies when similar systems ad been put into place, like for tsunamis. Have they succeeded when put to the test? No.

This has to succeed, the way things are set up now.

Or that CME, when it hits Earth (One narrowly missed us just a few years ago) could wipe out the power grid, globally, which would be bad enough, because literally everything depends on electricity. For example, people who are depending on electricity to heat, might not have any alternative source of heat.  But that would just be the beginning because shortly afterward, the lack of energy at nuclear power plants - if they did not have backup already in place to cool the reactor cores and spent fuel pools, which takes power, power enough to last as long as the power was out, which could be months or even years. Left without cooling, the decaying nuclear fuel would get hotter and hotter and start to burn through whatever was enclosing it. This might be happening in multiple places. That would stretch the resources that exist to handle these crises thin. Its not at all impossible, that would cause a huge, global nuclear crisis.

Loss of the ultimate heat sink.

With multiple nuclear power plants losing their abilities to cool themselves, then going critical..

This would be addressable, but it would take a desire to fix it which does not translate into immediate profits.

Have we addressed it yet?

Fully?

Where are we on that?

These are the questions we need to have answered before we build any more power plants to create even more risks and more nuclear waste that needs to be stored safely.

Its not rocket science.

For profit entities are not objective enough in my opinion to handle this risk. Are governments?



In many places PV and wind are considerably cheaper than nuclear. Even with something like 50% lost on storage (e.g. hydrogen) it can be a good alternative. Improvements on the storage part would be definitely good to make is more practical. It likely won't be as cheap as coal - but chances are good to compete with nuclear when it comes to price.
But those storage technologies don't exist yet. Electricity from nuclear does exist. Recently I saw a video from a Dutch scientist saying we could do without nuclear. I was pleasantly surprised that storage was mentioned in the video. However when the video was over I was still left with the question on how the storage for electricity from solar and wind would work exactly. Without knowing how the storage is going to take place you don't know the price. Currently nuclear, gas and coal are the batteries for solar and wind but those costs aren't factored into the price of electricity from solar and wind. IOW: solar and wind are made to look cheap artificially.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 09:32:17 pm
The building for storing the nuclear waste looks like expensive to keep up for the next 100000 years or so - especially in the Netherlands with likely rising see level.  I know there are a lot of irrational fears about the waste storage, but there are still a few real problems to it. One is that the costs come up in the future - this requires confidence in a stable society at least for the next lets say 20-40 years, before the waste can go to a reasonable "final" storage. I consider the technical side solvable, but have doubt with the social / political side.
They cleverly put a math formula on it to make people stay away. That building is only temporary storage, although it contains all the waste produced in the Netherlands so far apparently. The other link was an example of the permanent storage solution I've been talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
(And it's about 1000 years not 100000.)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 09:40:57 pm
Do you have a credible source to back up this statement that spent nuclear fuel only requires special storage for 1000 years?


(And it's about 1000 years not 100000.)

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 09:46:38 pm
Nuclear energy is being made to look cheap artificially. Don't fall for it.

The question to ask is, who ends up footing the bill for a nuclear accident? We all do. And it could be world changing in the case of a solar storm. Nctnico, I've repeatedly tried to explain the problem with the loss of the ultimate heat sink and nuclear fission reactors - the issue that caused the multiple meltdowns at Fukushima.
Fukushima used an old design. The newer designs don't do meltdowns because the cooling water is needed to keep the reaction going. No cooling water = no nuclear reaction. Intrinsically safe is the keyword here.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 22, 2018, 09:49:20 pm
There are several storage technologies already in use: pumped water (requires suitable terrain and thus not much in the Netherlands), batteries, fly-weels, compressed air - especially combined with gas power, hydrogen from hydrolysis.  The different technologies have there use over different time scales so one will likely need a combination and not a single solution. Hydrogen is still rather experimental and thus expensive, but one of the few options for seasonal storage. Chances are it can get reasonably cheap though at a low efficiency. This is why it would be mainly for long time storage. Backup power (e.g. from gas) can also be an alternative to storage.

I know storage is expensive, and some methods also have low efficiency, but only a part of the energy would have to go through storage. Still nuclear powers get subsidies promised  to some 16 cents in the UK, while off shore wind in Germany start to be offered at whole sale prices (currently around 5 cents - they may hope for more in the future).  So there is some room for storage costs or loss.  For nuclear one can argue there are additional hidden subsidies like not requiring full insurance and possibly rising disposal costs.

Nuclear power actually also needs some storage as it also produces power at night, when demand is low. They would even also need a backup, because of possible safety issues if safety is taken serious.

I don't see such a large risk in a solar storm - this is mainly effecting large grid cells like in the US. The smaller distant grid in Europe would already help. It would still disrupt the net, but nuclear pants are made to work without the grid, unless there is an tsunami  and earthquake that also takes out the backup power. Ideally it would only need a set of new fuses to get the grid up again after a solar-storm. Though I would still expect a few fuses to fail protecting some transformers or switches.  Local installations should be much less susceptible to a solar storm - first victims could be many satellites though.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 09:56:01 pm
Could you be specific as to the scientific name of this new technology?

What kind of fission reactor are you claiming has solved this problem?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 10:00:45 pm
Could you be specific as to the scientific name of this new technology?

What kind of fission reactor are you claiming has solved this problem?
I already linked to that before! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor) And no, this isn't new at all. Many of the nuclear power plants running today are using this principle.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 10:03:07 pm
The question to ask is, who ends up footing the bill for a nuclear accident?
Who ends up footing the bill for the pollution, health problems and climate change caused by coal plants? The same people. But nuclear is likely cheaper since large nuclear accidents are so rare.

I've repeatedly tried to explain the problem with the loss of the ultimate heat sink and nuclear fission reactors - the issue that caused the multiple meltdowns at Fukushima.
Other types of reactors doesn't have that problem, like Thorium MSR.

The current LWRs have backupgenerators so they are not dependent on the external power grid. Besides they produce their own power as long as they are running. At Fukushima Daiishi the problem was that the power plant was hit by a tsunami which disabled all the backup generators. They had seawalls that were designed to protect against a tsunami but they couldn't handle the record 2011 Tōhoku tsunami.

Okay, here is what could spark a huge crisis in this area. A solar storm like the "Carrington" one in 1859. (Named after the scientist who discovered it)

That could wipe out the power grid, and shortly afterward, cause a huge, global nuclear crisis. With multiple nuclear power plants losing their abilities to cool themselves
The risk with solar flare are that they can knock out large transformers in the power grid backbone, and it can take months to replace them, especially if a lot of countries in the world suddenly order replacements at the same time. But a solar flare will not damage a nuclear power plant nor will it interfere with the backup generators so it wouldn't cause a meltdown.

Being without power for months would probably be a disaster much worse than a nuclear meltdown though, since society has become so dependent on a working power grid. But since people seem to have identified this risk I'm assuming they are making plans for how to deal with it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 22, 2018, 10:04:52 pm
Do you have a credible source to back up this statement that spent nuclear fuel only requires special storage for 1000 years?


(And it's about 1000 years not 100000.)

Yes.

See http://withouthotair.com/ (http://withouthotair.com/) which is lauded by everybody from the green lobby to the big energy lobby.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 22, 2018, 10:06:00 pm
Could you be specific as to the scientific name of this new technology?

What kind of fission reactor are you claiming has solved this problem?

I'm not claiming it, but see the types described in http://withouthotair.com/ (http://withouthotair.com/) which is lauded by everybody from the green lobby to the big energy lobby.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 10:12:32 pm
You're right, as long as there is an uninterrupted source of backup power, the spent fuel can be kept from going into a thermal runaway situation.

That situation is also problematic.

I don't see such a large risk in a solar storm - this is mainly effecting large grid cells like in the US. The smaller distant grid in Europe would already help. It would still disrupt the net, but nuclear pants are made to work without the grid, unless there is an tsunami  and earthquake that also takes out the backup power. Ideally it would only need a set of new fuses to get the grid up again after a solar-storm. Though I would still expect a few fuses to fail protecting some transformers or switches.  Local installations should be much less susceptible to a solar storm - first victims could be many satellites though.

I've not read much about the situation in Europe but I do know that this problem has caused damage to transformers outside of the US. How much exposure other power systems have to this problem? I don't know but I wouldn't put much confidence in statements like "its not a problem" unless there clearly were major differences between the systems. Because its my understanding that high voltages are induced in any long conductors.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 10:13:37 pm
Do you have a credible source to back up this statement that spent nuclear fuel only requires special storage for 1000 years?


(And it's about 1000 years not 100000.)
After a 1000 year the radioactivity is down to the same level as uranium ore. But as I've said multiple times now, it will never be safe, even without the radioactivity it contains dangerous elements like lead and other heavy metals that will be dangerous for eternity.

N.B. Log-log plot
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/?action=dlattach;attach=603220;image)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17434-1_20 (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17434-1_20)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 10:33:11 pm
I'm sorry. I'm not convinced on an issue of this importance without more than vague statements.

The US government, last I looked, was trying to address this problem. Not saying it had been solved by XYZ reactors. We all live here on Earth and we have to keep this planet habitable for a long time.

Presumably you guys are engineers, I am not. But I feel that my position is the more prudent one. Come on, this is a problem that could be addressed for the time being, by multiple back ups but they have to be robust enough to work in a global crisis, and not fail. Not for two weeks, not for two months, lets say two years. Can we get to having backup power that is guaranteed to work for two years? Even if society has become a total mess due to failures caused elsewhere by this same problem? Or others!

(Its one of just a few potentially world changing externalities that we know 'happen' but when we can not predict when. Huge solar storms, however, likely happen more frequently than say, supervolcanoes, which can potentially wipe out crops, solar energy, wind and rainfall in an entire hemisphere or possibly throughout the entire globe, by changing the Earth's albedo until all that ash falls out of the atmosphere, which could take years. The ash could also have effects on the polar ice caps which could cause dramatic changes in the phase status of methane clathrate - frozen methane. A small rise in temperature could cause large changes in methane clathrate. Another good argument to develop new sources of energy that work, not keep on pouring money into things that don't work.)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 22, 2018, 10:39:46 pm
I'm sorry. I'm not convinced on an issue of this importance without more than vague statements.

The answers are not vague statements; they are explicit and reasoned. I am surprised that you can't see that - or perhaps you choose not to see that.

Quote
Presumably you guys are engineers, I am not.

That is becoming apparent (to me at least).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 10:45:45 pm

After a 1000 year the radioactivity is down to the same level as uranium ore. But as I've said multiple times now, it will never be safe, even without the radioactivity it contains dangerous elements like lead and other heavy metals that will be dangerous for eternity.

Do IAEA , NRC, or similar, say we should now be celebrating the solving of this huge problem?

If so, what kind of reactor do they say has solved this problem?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 11:14:16 pm
What kind of reactor? It says it right there in the graph!!  :palm:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 11:17:01 pm
Do IAEA , NRC, or similar, say we should now be celebrating the solving of this huge problem?
Like everything nuclear there is still political opposition so people in high positions are probably expressing themselves more diplomatically than that. But you can see this article about the Onkalo storage facility in Finland from IAEA for example:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/solving-the-back-end-finlands-key-to-the-final-disposal-of-spent-nuclear-fuel (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/solving-the-back-end-finlands-key-to-the-final-disposal-of-spent-nuclear-fuel)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 22, 2018, 11:21:29 pm
Do you have a credible source to back up this statement that spent nuclear fuel only requires special storage for 1000 years?


(And it's about 1000 years not 100000.)
After a 1000 year the radioactivity is down to the same level as uranium ore. But as I've said multiple times now, it will never be safe, even without the radioactivity it contains dangerous elements like lead and other heavy metals that will be dangerous for eternity.

N.B. Log-log plot
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/?action=dlattach;attach=603220;image)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17434-1_20 (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17434-1_20)
The time needed for safe nuclear storage is a controversial point - it really depends on the level deemed acceptable to release and at what probability and what fraction. Depending on the level the times I remember range from 300 years to some 1000000 years.

The curve shown here is however not that relevant, as it is only for the faster decaying part of the waste after reprocessing. In more normal direct disposal, there would be a much higher (e.g. 10 times as a first guess) actinide level - like the slow dropping green curve. So something like 100000 years are than very well plausible.  The point just was the over ground storage is not a long time solution.

With underground storage there is also no sharp end to the enclosure. Even it after lets say 10000 years some of the waste is coming up, it likely would be only a small part of it. It would be a bad thing if after 10000 years all the waste would suddenly come up - but this is not going to happen.  More likely a tiny fraction might come up early like after 10000 years and most of it will stay way down even for many millions of years.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 22, 2018, 11:30:26 pm
Either way storing nuclear waste is much safer than pumping CO2 in the ground. The stored CO2 can be released as a cloud of toxic gas (killing all animal life in a large area) until the earth falls apart.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 22, 2018, 11:34:43 pm
?????



Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 22, 2018, 11:52:46 pm
With underground storage there is also no sharp end to the enclosure. Even it after lets say 10000 years some of the waste is coming up, it likely would be only a small part of it. It would be a bad thing if after 10000 years all the waste would suddenly come up - but this is not going to happen.  More likely a tiny fraction might come up early like after 10000 years and most of it will stay way down even for many millions of years.
And if you were to put it in a subduction zone it would never come up!  :)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 23, 2018, 12:01:37 am
I'm not convinced on an issue of this importance without more than vague statements.
...
Presumably you guys are engineers, I am not.
That is important to know when trying to explain something. I, and I suspect everyone else here, has assumed a certain level of basic technical knowledge, so It's no wonder if you have found some arguments vague or difficult to understand.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 23, 2018, 12:47:38 am
I'm not convinced on an issue of this importance without more than vague statements.
...
Presumably you guys are engineers, I am not.
That is important to know when trying to explain something. I, and I suspect everyone else here, has assumed a certain level of basic technical knowledge, so It's no wonder if you have found some arguments vague or difficult to understand.



 :bullshit:

"Trust us, we're experts"

Shouldn't you - according to the above, know better than I what kind of proof is credible and what isn't?

Have you ever heard of the Precautionary Principle?

In particular we should take a look at the impact of combinations of low level toxicants, including radiation, on cell repair capacity and gene expression (Fyn and c-Cbl). Due to the lack of glutathione when its needed. This is particularly important during gestation.

Its a strongly non-linear relationship.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 23, 2018, 01:01:30 am
I'm not convinced on an issue of this importance without more than vague statements.
...
Presumably you guys are engineers, I am not.
That is important to know when trying to explain something. I, and I suspect everyone else here, has assumed a certain level of basic technical knowledge, so It's no wonder if you have found some arguments vague or difficult to understand.
:bullshit:

"Trust us, we're experts"
That's not what I meant.

If I'm addressing another engineer I will assume they know certain things, so I will omit those parts when making an argument. If I adress the general public I would explain things differently or it would be hard to understand. Like the plot for example, if people doesn't know what a log-log plot is then it's probably not a good idea to post it since it might not be interpreted correctly.

I certainly don't pretend to be an expert.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 23, 2018, 01:05:09 am
Precaution makes sense when the costs of getting something wrong are intolerably high. We should be focusing our attention on lines of research that don't come with so many known problems.

You know what they say about the word 'assume'.

Environmental toxicants effects are non-linear. Regulators are totally in denial about this, not because that makes sense. Its because they don't want to change.  Likely, everything that damages cells via reactive oxygen species is additive.

Radiation is functionally the same in this respect as other toxicants,

Because low level radiation exposure depletes intracellular glutathione.

An important discovery - that adequate stores of glutathione are essential for normal precursor cell differentiation (impacting expression of two genes, Fyn and c-Cbl) at a critical period of gestation is fairly new makes this particularly relevant.

It should change how we regulate everything that causes oxidative stress. Action levels of toxicants should be being reduced, not increased.

Thats the main mechanism by which radiation causes DNA and cell damage.

Instead they are working particularly hard to eliminate any possibility of unexposed control groups remaining.

And decrease access to medical care. Globally.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 23, 2018, 01:13:15 am
I'm not convinced on an issue of this importance without more than vague statements.
...
Presumably you guys are engineers, I am not.
That is important to know when trying to explain something. I, and I suspect everyone else here, has assumed a certain level of basic technical knowledge, so It's no wonder if you have found some arguments vague or difficult to understand.

"Trust us, we're experts"

The alternative is "don't trust the experts", with the implication that amateurs with the right breeding will do better than the experts.

Regrettably that is common in the UK, having been expressed by a government minister (Michael Gove). I hope and expect that the next time he falls ill and needs surgery, he asks me to do it rather than an expert.

Quote
Shouldn't you - according to the above, know better than I what kind of proof is credible and what isn't?

Yes. And that is the case.

You have been provided with comparative risks, and appear to want to concentrate on the lesser possible problem, while ignoring the major existing problem.

That is unbalanced, and characteristic of people exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 23, 2018, 01:26:20 am
Precaution makes sense when the costs of getting something wrong are intolerably high. We should be focusing our attention on lines of research that don't come with so many known problems.

You know what they say about the word 'assume'.

Environmental toxicants effects are non-linear.

In particular, Radiation, low level radiation exposure depletes intracellular glutathione.

An important discovery - that adequate stores of glutathione are essential for normal precursor cell differentiation (impacting expression of two genes, Fyn and c-Cbl) at a critical period of gestation is fairly new.

It should change how we regulate everything that causes oxidative stress. Action levels of toxicants should be being reduced, not increased.

Thats the main mechanism by which radiation causes DNA and cell damage.

You know what they say about the word "troll" and the words "tinfoil hat" and "pseudo-science"? :)

Where, exactly, do you live?
How much radon comes out of the ground and accumulates in your house. Some places near me have levels that are the equivalent of smoking 20 fags/day.
What is the altitude where you live? If you fly in commercial airliners, what radiation dose do you get?
Will you refuse XRays, even though experts tell you they are safe?
Will you refuse diagnostics if you get cancer?
Will you refuse treatment if you get cancer?

You are going to die. Deal with it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 23, 2018, 01:42:54 am
The UK is not very large. The options available to Britons after a serious nuclear accident would be quite limited.

That problem really applies almost everywhere.

Thats why its not covered by virtually any kind of insurance. Including health insurance. Insurers really didn't want to cover survivors of the two atomic bombings.

So they were/are? given care by Japanese doctors who made yearly trips to the US.

Lloyds of London, not exactly a radical environmentalist organization, estimated the costs of a severe space weather event to businesses as being in the trillions of dollars, the main "if" which would effect that total is likely the vulnerability of the nuclear power infrastructure to the loss of the ultimate heat sink problem. Loss of the grid would cost huge amounts of money and likely result in major problems for everybody but those costs would compound if the loss also triggered additional nuclear accidents.

Since radiation is invisible and the health costs so great, groupthink would likely kick in on a major scale.


"The day before the launch, Morton Thiokol engineers
warned that  the
flight might be risky. As the team responsible
for the performance
of the rocket booster, they worried about the below-freezing
temperature
that was forecast
for the morning of the launch. The 0-ring seals had never been tested below 53 they worried about the below-freezing
temperature
that was forecast
for the morning of the launch. The 0-ring seals had never been tested below 53
degrees Fahrenheit, and as Thiokol engineer
Roger Boisjoly later testified,
get­
ting the 0-rings to seal gaps with the temperature
in the 20s was like "trying to
shove a brick into a crack versus a sponge."3
The 0-ring seals had long been classified
a critical component on the rocket motor, "a failure point-without back-up-that could cause a loss of life or ve­hicle if the component failed."


Yet when Thiokol engineers
raised the safety issue in a teleconference,
NASA personnel discounted their concerns and urged them to reconsider their recommendation.
After an off-line caucus with company executives, Thiokol engineers reversed their "no-go" position and announced that their solid rocket motor was ready to fly.
---

What I am saying is it makes sense to focus on things we know bring environmental benefit, and not things we know could potentially be far more problematic than they acknowledge, if anything goes wrong.

let me give you an example, Brexit coverage is leaving out the major danger to the UK, totally. The WTO has very specific rules on services, an endpoint of privatization. The 'governmental authority" exception for public services wont apply unless service sectors are carved out explicitly. The NHS is likely to run into this.

Are they doing carving it out? No, as far as I know they would have to have done in back in the 90s and didnt. So now its going to be up to >150 other WTO members.

If they refuse to tell you the truth about something as important as that, (The US government hasnt told Americans about this issue either) I wouldn't trust them on responsibly managing the risks of nuclear power.

If you do, thats your prerogative, being British.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 23, 2018, 02:09:26 am
We should be focusing our attention on lines of research that don't come with so many known problems.
Exactly, that is why we should get rid of coal. Air pollution from coal power plants kill more people every year than what Chernobyl did in total. On top of that Coal plants emit greenhouse gasses which causes climate change, sulphur dioxide which causes ocean acidification and many other nasty chemicals. Did you know there is mercury in tuna? It comes from coal power plants and it is very toxic.

Environmental toxicants effects are non-linear.
Many believe the body is capable of repairing low level radiation damage (since we have evolved in an environment with low levels of radiation). That would mean it's in fact less dangerous than what the linear-no-threshold hypothesis suggest. That means the damage from Chernobyl is much less serious than what is currently assumed. We have no proof of that though, so it is assumed it is linear. Even so, coal is far more dangerous.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 23, 2018, 03:17:17 am
Cell division and repair is a finite resource. Look up "Hayflick Limit".

Environmental toxicants effects are non-linear. That is the current opinion. And new discoveries have been made which should make us view glutathione availability during pregnancy as all important.

If a government can't be truthful to its own people about important health care coverage related side effects of anti-democratic trade agreements which they apparently are hiding from your whole country---



Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 23, 2018, 05:48:25 pm
We should be focusing our attention on lines of research that don't come with so many known problems.
Exactly, that is why we should get rid of coal. Air pollution from coal power plants kill more people every year than what Chernobyl did in total. On top of that Coal plants emit greenhouse gasses which causes climate change, sulphur dioxide which causes ocean acidification and many other nasty chemicals. Did you know there is mercury in tuna? It comes from coal power plants and it is very toxic.

Environmental toxicants effects are non-linear.
Many believe the body is capable of repairing low level radiation damage (since we have evolved in an environment with low levels of radiation). That would mean it's in fact less dangerous than what the linear-no-threshold hypothesis suggest. That means the damage from Chernobyl is much less serious than what is currently assumed. We have no proof of that though, so it is assumed it is linear. Even so, coal is far more dangerous.

The arguments you're making about coal and mercury are sound, and you'll find that I also make them. I just don't think more nuclear fission is the answer to this problem. I think a sound policy would attempt to reduce usage while increasing the number of energy options available, focusing on renewable sources as much as was possible.

Nuclear fusion may be better than fission in terms of waste but it will still require retiring equipment, which will be radiologically hot, but the volume of waste material I think would be much reduced.

What do you think of the decision by Germany to phase out fission power plants in the wake of the Chernobyl accident?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 24, 2018, 03:00:05 am
Once we have gotten rid of coal power it is a good idea to replace nuclear with e.g. solar, but not before. As long as we have coal we need to replace it with something safer and sustainable, currently nuclear is often the only/best option.

Solar panels (like wind) are great but they only generate electricity when the weather and time of day/year permits. We need electricity 24 hours a day to keep society going. I'm at about the same latitude as Scotland, or southern Alaska. Today the sun rises at 8:30 and sets at 15:30, the suns altitude at noon is about 10 degrees over the horizon. So we only have about 7 hours of sunlight and when we do it's pretty dim. I.e. we couldn't hope to rely only on solar during the winter. There are all kinds of proposals of how you might work around that, but at the moment it's a bunch of more or less fanciful theories and ideas. One of them might turn out to be practical, but no complete solution exists today.

Science/engineering isn't magic, we can't just pull the technology we want out of a hat when we need it, so you can't just assume that if we throw more money at research and development we will get a solution in a timely fashion. Fusion power is a good example of that. We have been investing enormous amounts om money on fusion for a long time, hoping it will solve all our energy problems. Despite that, while fusion researchers are making some progress, they still have no idea when, if ever, they will have a working fusion reactor.

We could try and be more energy efficient, and we should, but that requires large sacrifices that not everyone appears to be willing to make right now. And there is a limit to how much energy we can save: we need some power, it's not just a convenience, it's what makes all the machines, factories and hospitals work. They produce our food, delivers drinking water, medicine and healthcare. It's essential to society.

Besides, making all these changes (energy saving, solar power, etc) will take a long time, even if everyone would agree to do it (which they currently do not). We should have begun 30 years ago. Look around you: nothing is happening we are using more and more energy, the amount of coal burnt isn't just increasing, it's accelerating!

So while we are waiting for people to begin saving power and inventing solar power storage solutions we should use whatever methods are available right now to replace coal. The most obvious choice is nuclear. It exists and we know it works and as a bonus it's actually pretty safe (contrary to popular belief), as I've pointed out it's even safer than water power if you look at the statistics.

While it's true what someone said: it takes a long time to build a new nuclear power plant, and we couldn't possibly replace all coal plants with nuclear quickly enough. What is happening right now is that people are irrationally shutting down nuclear reactors and replacing them with more coal and gas (that's what Germany did recently for example). When building new power plants people choose coal instead of nuclear (like South Africa decided to do recently). That is really bad for all of us; it's bad for our health, it's bad for the environment, it's bad for the climate (which in turn, in the long run, might even be catastrophic for us).

In order to get rid of coal as fast as possible we should expand nuclear power as fast as possible (while still maintaining a high safety standard of course), just as we should be expanding solar and other renewable options as quickly as we can. Then once we have replaced all the coal power plants we can begin replacing nuclear.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 24, 2018, 01:14:45 pm
The arguments you're making about coal and mercury are sound, and you'll find that I also make them. I just don't think more nuclear fission is the answer to this problem. I think a sound policy would attempt to reduce usage while increasing the number of energy options available, focusing on renewable sources as much as was possible.

You put it far more strongly than that.

Your statements have been equivalent to saying we should jump out of the frying pan because it is hot, without having a workable alternative to being in the fire.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 24, 2018, 07:37:39 pm
No, I'm saying we should not jump any further into the frying pan, until we address some major issues of concern, you are saying we should, while leaving too much unsaid.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.

The loss of the ultimate heat sink which is a known problem of boiling water reactors.

Which organizations responsible for safety of nations have acknowledged - when pressed, to be of major concern.

Its not an impossible problem to solve, it just requires a will to solve it.

Which people like you (I am gathering you're a nuclear engineer, is this your area of expertise, or not?) If so you have a responsibility to try to address the problem head on, by solving it.

We also should be thinking about different grid architectures which are not as vulnerable to the induced EMP from a solar CME event (or nuclear terrorism)


Please read:

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rockville, Maryland
In the Matter of a Proposed Rulemaking
Regarding Amendment of 10 CFR Part 50,
"DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES"
Docket No. PRM-50-96
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
This Petition for Rulemaking is submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802, "Petition for Rulemaking,"
by the Foundation for Resilient Societies. The Petitioner requests that the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), following public notice, opportunity for comment, and public
hearing, adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed by the NRC under 10 CFR Part
50 to assure long-term cooling and unattended water makeup of spent fuel pools."

---------------------------------------------------
also see "High-Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American
Bulk Power System" and the January 2009 Report by National Academy of Sciences ― "Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts Workshop Report" (downloadable at nap.edu both if you sign up, or as a guest)

We really don't want to find out about this problem by it happening. It could become a total nightmare. The cost will be many orders of magnitude lower if we tackle it now.

Thank you.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 24, 2018, 09:10:03 pm
Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.
Because that ought not to be a problem. Every reactor out there should have sufficiently redundant totally independent cooling systems with endurance of twice the worst case time to cold shutdown and months of SFP cooling (and immune to natural disasters, don't put its components in a friggin submersible zone like at Fukushima  :palm:). The fact it isn't so is so ridiculous to even mention.

If it means 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility then install 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility. It's still almost negligible compared to the rest.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 24, 2018, 09:23:34 pm
Because that ought not to be a problem. Every reactor out there should have sufficiently redundant totally independent cooling systems with endurance of twice the worst case time to cold shutdown and months of SFP cooling (and immune to natural disasters, don't put its components in a friggin submersible zone like at Fukushima  :palm:). The fact it isn't so is so ridiculous to even mention.

If it means 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility then install 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility. It's still almost negligible compared to the rest.
The Fukushima plant is located where it is because that location mitigates or removes other risks. Having a large body of water to cool decreases the risk of having overheating issues, but comes with the risk of flooding. It's not as straightforward as it may seem.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 24, 2018, 09:27:03 pm
Not talking about the whole plant, but putting the emergency generators and critical electrical distribution and safety components below sea level instead of atop the nice hill behind is absolutely ridiculous.
Even having the "normally operating" stuff submersible can be OK, as long as the emergency stuff isn't.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 24, 2018, 09:44:57 pm
Not talking about the whole plant, but putting the emergency generators and critical electrical distribution and safety components below sea level instead of atop the nice hill behind is absolutely ridiculous.
Even having the "normally operating" stuff submersible can be OK, as long as the emergency stuff isn't.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? You get a 1000 things right and the 1001st bites you.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 24, 2018, 09:51:27 pm
Oh as things go I'm sure it's nothing to do with hindsight, someone will have thought of it and mentioned it, but will have been told to shut up cause it would increase costs and delay delivery (and since others hadn't mentioned it before they would look stupid and absolutely don't want that).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 24, 2018, 10:06:46 pm
Oh as things go I'm sure it's nothing to do with hindsight, someone will have thought of it and mentioned it, but will have been told to shut up cause it would increase costs and delay delivery (and since others hadn't mentioned it before they would look stupid and absolutely don't want that).
Is there any evidence for that assumption?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 24, 2018, 10:09:45 pm
No, I'm saying we should not jump any further into the frying pan, until we address some major issues of concern, you are saying we should, while leaving too much unsaid.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.
<Snipped monomanic rant>

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on December 24, 2018, 10:50:35 pm
I'm happy to endure a little criticism if it leads to common sense.

We should never do anything important without a lot of information gathering and public input.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.
Because that ought not to be a problem. Every reactor out there should have sufficiently redundant totally independent cooling systems with endurance of twice the worst case time to cold shutdown and months of SFP cooling (and immune to natural disasters, don't put its components in a friggin submersible zone like at Fukushima  :palm:). The fact it isn't so is so ridiculous to even mention.

If it means 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility then install 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility. It's still almost negligible compared to the rest.

Exactly!

The US has similar nuclear power plants on beaches. Several of them.  I'm pretty sure some are quite like the four at Fukushima. That design is extremely common.

Unfortunately.

And there have been tsunamis in unusual places before. They leave telltale 'chevrons' of debris, visible from space.

That said, I think the risk of a 1859 level solar storm is likely to be a lot higher, statistically. We just narrowly missed one in 2012.

See http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/etsd/pes/ferc_emp_gic.shtml (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/etsd/pes/ferc_emp_gic.shtml) to see how a solar storm would impact the grid and why.

See also
On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events - Riley - 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011SW000734/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011SW000734/full)  (pub Feb 2012)

As if to give us a further warning, on July 23, 2012 a space probe recorded the largest CME in over 150 years.

Another interesting document for which I have no URL is a paper entitled
SOLAR STORMS EFFECTS ON NUCLEAR AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS

published Feb 2018

Check it out!

----------

Since you mentioned Fukushima- this Frontline video is worth watching.

A US public TV news explores how a scientist in Japan had warned Tepco about the tsunami risk - but they didn't listen. You’ve probably never heard of the Jogan event. But according to Japanese paleontologist Koji Minoura, it was an ancient tsunami that devastated northeast Japan in 869 AD, killing more than 1,000 people.

He was tipped off to Jogan from a most unlikely place: a poem.

Minoura researched this event and ones like it for more than 20 years, publishing his findings in major scientific journals. Giant tsunamis occurred in northeast Japan about every thousand years, he warned — meaning the area was overdue for another one prior to the devastating March 2011 wave.


(Yes, I KNOW random probability doesn't work like that)

http://www.theworld.org/2012/01/tsunami-minoura/ (http://www.theworld.org/2012/01/tsunami-minoura/)  (The World)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/did-this-man-predict-the-tsunami-at-fukushima/ (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/did-this-man-predict-the-tsunami-at-fukushima/)  (PBS- WGBH Boston)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/nuclear-aftershocks/ (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/nuclear-aftershocks/)  (Frontline - Video)

-------------

Also, read

Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report | The National Academies Press

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12507/severe-space-weather-events-understanding-societal-and-economic-impacts-a (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12507/severe-space-weather-events-understanding-societal-and-economic-impacts-a)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 25, 2018, 04:21:06 am
No, I'm saying we should not jump any further into the frying pan, until we address some major issues of concern, you are saying we should, while leaving too much unsaid.
You are saying nuclear is dangerous, no one denies that, that is obvious. Everything is dangerous. Life is dangerous, you can die! The relevant question is: how dangerous is it compared to the alternatives.

As shown, nuclear is safer by a fair margin compared to coal (and even water), and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.
Yes we have, several times. We've also pointed out that there are many nuclear reactor types that doesn't have this problem. One example being the pebble bed reactor.

We also should be thinking about different grid architectures which are not as vulnerable to the induced EMP from a solar CME event (or nuclear terrorism)
People are thinking about that and dealing with it. The only reason you know about it, despite not being an engineer, is because people are thinking, talking and dealing with it. It's also irrelevant to this discussion.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on December 25, 2018, 04:00:42 pm
Quote
As shown, nuclear is safer by a fair margin compared to coal (and even water)
Nope.
Nuclear has an approx ~1% chance of blowing up during it's lifetime, rendering many thousands of km² unhabitable in the process.
Also it has a 100% of chance to poison the same ~1000km² during the next 10 000 Years.
Coal doesn't do any of that, it only poisons a few km² around more reliably, and only for the few decades it runs(still bad)

Quote
and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.
Nope.
Today, the most financially credible alternative is utility scale PV.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 25, 2018, 07:28:27 pm
Nope.
Nuclear has an approx ~1% chance of blowing up during it's lifetime, rendering many thousands of km² unhabitable in the process.
Also it has a 100% of chance to poison the same ~1000km² during the next 10 000 Years.
:scared:

That sounds really bad but what does it mean? What do you mean with "nuclear's lifetime", and how did you come up with 1%? What is the significance of "blowing up"?

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 2600 km². Today it is basically a nature reserve with a flourishing wild life. It's not uninhabitable. It is preferable to not live there if you have the option since the increased radiation gives a (barely measurable) increase in cancer risk, mainly for children. Despite that, there are people living in the exclusion zone today who never left and they are doing just fine. The Chernobyl power plant continued to operate a long time after the accident, people went to work at "ground zero" every day for fourteen years. It's bad, but it's not nearly as bad as people make it seem.

It does not matter how often something blows up, the relevant question is how much damage per unit energy nuclear causes compared to coal (or water). The effects of the Chernobyl accident have been studied extensively so we know very well what the effects are. We also have a rough idea of how often they happen*. If you compare the numbers, coal is worse by a large margin.

* It's likely that accidents will be less frequent in the future since new reactor designs are inherently much safer. We learn from previous accidents which mean we can prevent the same thing happening again in the future. Nuclear isn't just safer than coal and water power, it will keep getting even more safe with time. On top of that, the medical science is moving forward and we are able to cure more and more types of cancer.

Coal doesn't do any of that, it only poisons a few km² around more reliably, and only for the few decades it runs(still bad)
Wrong.

Coal plants pollute the air and the air is spread around globally (or at least over the same hemisphere). The mercury in tuna comes from coal plants because the fallout from coal plants have poisoned the oceans. Ocean acidification is caused by sulphur dioxide from coal plants, it's what's killing the great barrier reef for example.

It's not possible to create a coal exclusion zone because it would mean that the entire planet would be made "uninhabitable". You are probably completely unaffected by any nuclear accident, but right now while you are reading this you are breathing in pollutants from coal power plants with every breath you take. You swallow it with every bite of tuna sandwich. The air pollution from coal is practically guaranteed to shorten your lifespan and lower your life quality. Conversely the negative effects from nuclear is zero as long as there is no accident, and if there is its effects are limited geographically and can often be mitigated.

If you check the data you see that we can have a nuclear accident of the Chernobyl magnitude every year and the health and environmental effects would still be less severe than those caused by coal power plants. (That takes into account that the radiation remains for a long time).

And we haven't even considered CO², the greenhouse effect and global warming yet...

Quote
and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.
Nope.
Today, the most financially credible alternative is utility scale PV.
Except when it's cloudy, night or winter? Or what do you mean? What do you base that claim on?

Don't get me wrong, I love solar, we should use it as much as possible but it can't completely replace coal/nuclear yet. That is why the anti nuclear crowd don't say we can solve the climate change problem by using renewable only, instead anti nuclear people say we need to reduce our power consumption a lot as well. Unfortunately they doesn't explain what we should do when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Sure we can survive without television but should we also just shut down the hospitals, the food production and the medicine factories? Do you believe the effects of doing that will be less serious than Chernobyl?

And sure, if they can make that happen, fine, but until then we should use nuclear to replace coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 25, 2018, 07:45:13 pm
Quote
As shown, nuclear is safer by a fair margin compared to coal (and even water)
Nope.
Nuclear has an approx ~1% chance of blowing up during it's lifetime, rendering many thousands of km² unhabitable in the process.
Also it has a 100% of chance to poison the same ~1000km² during the next 10 000 Years.
Coal doesn't do any of that, it only poisons a few km² around more reliably, and only for the few decades it runs(still bad)

Quote
and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.
Nope.
Today, the most financially credible alternative is utility scale PV.

The safety of nuclear a difficult topic. Because of the rather low probability of an accident it is very difficult, if not impossible to really calculate the chances for an accident. So there is a rather high uncertainty on how probable an accident really is. Form experience so far there is certain chance for an accident and an accident can have quite severe consequences. With Fukushima the weather was very favorable, sending most if the radiation out to see. With the the Chernobyl accident the weather was rather unusual sending the the weaker radiation part out to quite populated areas. The really bad part was still more on the favorable side. So it could also be much worse for the acute damage.

AFAIK the officially assumes frequency for a big accident is something like 1 in 100K years per plant. So with some 500 active power plants, one can expect an accident every 200 years. However once in a while they find design faults and the safety estimates are never accurate and could easily be off quite a bit. I don't think it would be as high as 1% chance - but 0.1% seems plausible.

Much of the radiation will only be really bad for a few 100 years. They expect much of the zone around Chernobyl to be relatively clean again in some 200 - 300 years. Hg from Coal plants will stay out in the environment also for quite some time, before it is buried in sediments. For the CO2 currently 27000 years are assumed and this number may go up somewhat (e.g. proportional to CO2 content) if the level is higher (less positive effect of CO2 on plant growth, when already high).

The danger with coal is less with accidents, but more due to the pollution, especially Hg and CO2 and in old plants it was SO2.

The alternatives to coal depend a lot on the location - alone the fact that nuclear take so long to build and the high price usually puts it rather far back on the list of possible alternatives. One could continue with a controversial discussion about nuclear, if we would need power in 100-200 years. However we need an alternative fast - e.g. in something like 20 year, better earlier. So even if we finally want to go nuclear in 200 years, we need to have something else. For an intermediate time natural gas could be a good idea.

Most alternatives (including nuclear) are expected to be more expensive than the current price paid for coal. If the external costs are includes coal would also be a lot more expensive. So we kind of have to accept that energy prices will go up and it would thus make sense to use less of it. So far at a good location PV is cheap, but PV + storage however is relatively expensive, but it could still be the best solution, as the price for storage is expected to go down.

If one does not mind the details, one could first use PV to cover 50% of our needs and than reduce the demand by 50% and everything is fine.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on December 25, 2018, 09:01:35 pm
Quote
What do you mean with "nuclear's lifetime"
The working time of the nuclear reactors.
As for now, none have blown up before comissionning or after decomissionning, except in the Krystym disaster where waste in a tank blew up.

Quote
how did you come up with 1%
There are about 450 reactors at the GW electricity output scale. 5 of those blew up until today. That's approx 1%. Which is a very bad safety record, considering the devastation each event brings to the whole region.

Quote
What is the significance of "blowing up"?
"Uncontrolled release of core material" Could be a better definition, usually associated with a core meltdown as in Fukushima(3x) and TMI  or straight explosion (Tchernobyl)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 25, 2018, 09:20:09 pm
AFAIK the officially assumes frequency for a big accident is something like 1 in 100K years per plant. So with some 500 active power plants, one can expect an accident every 200 years. However once in a while they find design faults and the safety estimates are never accurate and could easily be off quite a bit. I don't think it would be as high as 1% chance - but 0.1% seems plausible.
Nuclear reactor accidents is only a public health issue if they cause pollution, not all accidents do, like the one at three mile iland. It does affect the cost though.

The metric that is relevant is the long term average harm/watt. You can define harm differently but as long as you come up with something reasonable and treat both nuclear and coal the same it is useful for comparison. If we are interested in the frequency of accidents, and the average harm caused, it doesn't matter that it could have been worse, it could also have been better. One might consider a higher variance as a disadvantage but I'm not sure of that. Still, only considering the air pollution from coal, it is many orders of magnitude worse than nuclear.

Most alternatives (including nuclear) are expected to be more expensive than the current price paid for coal. If the external costs are includes coal would also be a lot more expensive. So we kind of have to accept that energy prices will go up and it would thus make sense to use less of it. So far at a good location PV is cheap, but PV + storage however is relatively expensive, but it could still be the best solution, as the price for storage is expected to go down.

If one does not mind the details, one could first use PV to cover 50% of our needs and than reduce the demand by 50% and everything is fine.
As far as I can tell the best option is to use PV when possible, if it's not then nuclear, then water, etc, and as a last temporary option gas (since it's better than coal, but not by much).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on December 25, 2018, 09:25:00 pm
Except that's probably not a proper way to count it - at TMI containment did its job and release of material was minimal and somewhat insignificant, so probably can't count as one of the "bad ones". And at Fukushima whether it was one or 3 doesn't change much, so it's more the whole event that counts for one than one per reactor...

so goes from 5 to 2 when looking at impact rather than kinda meaningless theoretical numbers.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 25, 2018, 09:25:40 pm
Quote
What do you mean with "nuclear's lifetime"
The working time of the nuclear reactors.
As for now, none have blown up before comissionning or after decomissionning, except in the Krystym disaster where waste in a tank blew up.
Krystym was a plutonium production facility for nuclear weapons. It's not comparable to civilian nuclear power stations. I'm against using nuclear for military purposes.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: f4eru on December 25, 2018, 09:40:25 pm
It's not comparable to civilian nuclear power stations. I'm against using nuclear for military purposes.
That's a bummer, because all Nuclear Power stations produce plutonium which is "recycled" into weapons.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 25, 2018, 09:47:44 pm
It's not comparable to civilian nuclear power stations. I'm against using nuclear for military purposes.
That's a bummer, because all Nuclear Power stations produce plutonium which is "recycled" into weapons.
Nope, not all. Some do though. That is a big reason why some countries choose less safe types of reactors (Chernobyl being a good example). So your concern should be directed towards nuclear weapons and proliferation, not civilian nuclear power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Proliferation_concerns
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 25, 2018, 10:25:34 pm
It is more like civilian reactor could use plutonium originally made for weapons. Still civilian nuclear power is connected with some proliferation risks. Some of the civilian (e.g. the Russian RMBK or the Canadian CANDU) reactors can be be used reasonably well too as a step towards weapons. Though it would still need reprocessing. If one would really want to use nuclear on a large scale, one might have to include breeding reactors and thus reprocessing in some form.  For the few currently existing and the few new build one there is enough uranium, but the supplies are still limited.    So with if one would really choose a massive extension on nuclear, the proliferation risk would likely gets important again.
The breeding reactors are also considered more critical with respect to safety and at least up to now were mostly relatively expensive failures.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 26, 2018, 02:35:03 am
It's also true that Chernobyl was a disaster avoided. A few men prevented what used to be the core melting through the floor and reaching a reservoir of water. It's accepted that would have caused a much more massive steam explosion which would have wiped out the entire plant and led to much of Europe being heavily contaminated. "By most estimates, such a blast may have wiped out half of Europe, leaving it riskier to live in for 500,000 years." I can imagine that being unaware of both facts makes one much more cavalier in regards to the risks of nuclear power. It's hard to fear what you don't know. We danced with the devil and he threw us a bone.
It's these kind of exaggerations and scaremongering that is the real problem.

I just found this when reading up on this alleged "disaster avoided":

Quote from: Wikipedia
The bubbler pool could be drained by opening its sluice gates. However, the valves controlling it were underwater, located in a flooded corridor in the basement. So volunteers in wetsuits and respirators (for protection against radioactive aerosols) and equipped with dosimeters, entered the knee-deep radioactive water and managed to open the valves.[84][85] These were the engineers Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bezpalov (who knew where the valves were), accompanied by the shift supervisor Boris Baranov.[86][87][88] Upon succeeding and emerging from the water, according to many English language news articles, books and the prominent BBC docudrama Surviving Disaster – Chernobyl Nuclear, the three knew it was a suicide-mission and began suffering from radiation sickness and died soon after.[89] Some sources also incorrectly claimed that they died there in the plant.[88] However, research by Andrew Leatherbarrow, author of the 2016 book Chernobyl 01:23:40,[84] determined that the frequently recounted story is a gross exaggeration. Alexei Ananenko continues to work in the nuclear energy industry, and rebuffs the growth of the Chernobyl media sensationalism surrounding him.[90] While Valeri Bezpalov was found to still be alive by Leatherbarrow, the 65-year-old Baranov had lived until 2005 and had died of heart failure.[91]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_explosion_risk

As I wrote before, those estimates were pulled out of someones behind. I'd laugh but it's really doubly tragic: first the accident, and now all the scaremongering and alternative facts which makes us use something much worse (coal).
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 27, 2018, 01:48:26 pm
I just found this when reading up on this alleged "disaster avoided":

Quote from: Wikipedia
The bubbler pool could be drained by opening its sluice gates. However, the valves controlling it were underwater, located in a flooded corridor in the basement. So volunteers in wetsuits and respirators (for protection against radioactive aerosols) and equipped with dosimeters, entered the knee-deep radioactive water and managed to open the valves.[84][85] These were the engineers Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bezpalov (who knew where the valves were), accompanied by the shift supervisor Boris Baranov.[86][87][88] Upon succeeding and emerging from the water, according to many English language news articles, books and the prominent BBC docudrama Surviving Disaster – Chernobyl Nuclear, the three knew it was a suicide-mission and began suffering from radiation sickness and died soon after.[89] Some sources also incorrectly claimed that they died there in the plant.[88] However, research by Andrew Leatherbarrow, author of the 2016 book Chernobyl 01:23:40,[84] determined that the frequently recounted story is a gross exaggeration. Alexei Ananenko continues to work in the nuclear energy industry, and rebuffs the growth of the Chernobyl media sensationalism surrounding him.[90] While Valeri Bezpalov was found to still be alive by Leatherbarrow, the 65-year-old Baranov had lived until 2005 and had died of heart failure.[91]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_explosion_risk

As I wrote before, those estimates were pulled out of someones behind. I'd laugh but it's really doubly tragic: first the accident, and now all the scaremongering and alternative facts which makes us use something much worse (coal).
I'm not sure what you're arguing. I've used the paragraph you quote in our discussion before. It doesn't mention the steam explosion estimates being incorrect. It does mention the three men preventing the disaster not dying, as others had previously reported not too long after the disaster happened. I never claimed these men died. The men not dying is information borrowed from the research of Andrew Leatherbarrow, who did a fair bit of research on the Chernobyl disaster and also wrote a book about it. Estimates what would have happened if the steam explosion had occurred can be found in this same book. It's not "pulled out of someones behind". It's the result of research and experts weighing in, coming from amongst others the same source you've quoted to make your point.

It really does seem you're trying to cast doubt on something that is well documented and researched, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. And I cannot help but notice, but you really only now bothered to read through the Wikipedia page of the event we discussed over many posts? You didn't even do that before this whole discussion? There seems to be a serious lacking of knowledge of the history of nuclear power and extremely minimal effort to change it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 27, 2018, 05:36:21 pm
I'm not sure what you're arguing. I've used the paragraph you quote in our discussion before. It doesn't mention the steam explosion estimates being incorrect. It does mention the three men preventing the disaster not dying, as others had previously reported not too long after the disaster happened. I never claimed these men died. The men not dying is information borrowed from the research of Andrew Leatherbarrow, who did a fair bit of research on the Chernobyl disaster and also wrote a book about it. Estimates what would have happened if the steam explosion had occurred can be found in this same book. It's not "pulled out of someones behind". It's the result of research and experts weighing in, coming from amongst others the same source you've quoted to make your point.
If the people spreading this idea is making up that people died, then they are not very credible (or maybe you think so?). It's a perfect example of the scaremongering I'm talking about. It's dishonest and a great disservice to humanity, making people so irrationally afraid of nuclear power that they stick with something familiar but far worse.

What qualifications does this Andrew Leatherbarrow (https://leatherbarrowa.exposure.co/) have that makes you think he is able to correctly assess what could have happened? As far as I can tell he's just another journalist who's trying to make a few bucks on the tragedy by inventing another doomsday scenario.

It probably could have been a bit worse, it could also have been a bit better. That is a pretty useless statement though. What is relevant when comparing methods of electricity generation is how much harm the different methods cause per watt generated. Roughly speaking for nuclear that would be the average number of accidents per watt times the average damage done by an accident. We can get an estimate of that number today by looking at what has actually happened since the first reactors was built in the 1940s. If we compare that to what has actually happened to water power dams, and coal power plants (which is happening continuously) it becomes clear nuclear is safer by a fair margin.

If you want us to speculate about what every journalist thinks might have happened we should also speculate about what would happen if the hoover dam breaks, or what if the west antarctic ice sheet collapses, and have you heard about the clathrate gun hypothesis? That are scenarios that have been studied by actual scientists. If the clathrate gun goes of it could possibly wipe out humanity. The west antarctic ice sheet collapse would only lead to a rapid sea level rise of about 7 m. And go ahead and google what would happen if the hoover dam breaks (or the three gorges dam).

It really does seem you're trying to cast doubt on something that is well documented and researched, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. And I cannot help but notice, but you really only now bothered to read through the Wikipedia page of the event we discussed over many posts? You didn't even do that before this whole discussion? There seems to be a serious lacking of knowledge of the history of nuclear power and extremely minimal effort to change it.
I'm trying to expose anti-nuclear bs.

Again with the ad-hominem, for some reason it's typical characteristic of those arguing against nuclear power. Ignore the facts and say whoever you're arguing with is stupid, ignorant, etc. That is not so surprising though, it's what some people resort to when they have no factual arguments.

You keep claiming it's well documented and researched but you don't provide any credible references, your source for this seems to be mr. Leatherbarrows and that is just plain ridiculous. The one basing his understanding on what happened on a Wikipedia page or what a random journalist wrote is the one who should question if they have enough knowledge about the subject. Perpetuating such myths isn't helping anyone.

Here is a german analysis of what happened that I would say is more credible than mr. Leatherbarrows' https://www.grs.de/sites/default/files/pdf/GRS_121_eng_0.pdf (https://www.grs.de/sites/default/files/pdf/GRS_121_eng_0.pdf)

However, It's not all that relevant anymore, unless you are a nuclear engineer, since no one wants to build more RBMK reactors and the remaining ones in Russia have been modified to prevent a similar accident to happen. I.e. current  and future nuclear will be even safer than it already is today.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 27, 2018, 06:06:40 pm
There is no scaremongering. There were old Western reports from right after the disaster which turned out to be inaccurate. This is in no small part due to the Iron Curtain being in full force at that point, which made fact finding difficult.

The qualifications of Andrew Leatherbarrow are that he later did this fact finding. He travelled the region, did interviews with those involved, indexed existing official reports and consulted experts. You think he's qualified, as the point of your previous post was made based on information researched and provided by him. It's quite remarkable to now do a 180 because his information suddenly doesn't suit you. More importantly, he isn't the first to report on the stream explosion that was prevented. How things expired came to light after the Iron Curtain fell and is commonly accepted and not contended. Except by you, apparently.

It's not an ad hominem. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the foundation of your arguments and the thoroughness of your research, which are evidently lacking or non-existent. Poorly or unresearched arguments are unlikely to be sound. Labelling events showing the danger of nuclear power as "anti-nuclear bs" isn't a viable approach, especially when this claim is poorly researched.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 27, 2018, 06:24:50 pm
The qualifications of Andrew Leatherbarrow are that he later did this fact finding. He travelled the region, did interviews with those involved, indexed existing official reports and consulted experts. You think he's qualified, as the point of your previous post was made based on information researched and provided by him. It's quite remarkable to now do a 180 because his information suddenly doesn't suit you. More importantly, he isn't the first to report on the stream explosion that was prevented. How things expired came to light after the Iron Curtain fell and is commonly accepted and not contended. Except by you, apparently.
So he really is just a journalist. :palm: That three brave engineers opened a valve to prevent what they at the time considered a risk of another steam explosion is not in question, but how likely it was and what the effect would have been is. I believe that journalists are competent enough to determine that the people involved weren't dead, but not that he can tell what would have happened or how likely it was.

It's not an ad hominem. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the foundation of your arguments and the thoroughness of your research, which are evidently lacking or non-existent. Poorly or unresearched arguments are unlikely to be sound. Labelling events showing the danger of nuclear power as "anti-nuclear bs" isn't a viable approach, especially when this claim is poorly researched.
It is. "argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You'r the one with poorly researched arguments. The credibility of mr. Leatherbarrow is relevant since he is apparently the "expert" claiming half of Europe  nearly became uninhabitable etc. which is a fine example of scaremongering.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 27, 2018, 06:41:44 pm
You keep pretending Leatherbarrow made these estimations himself, but that's obviously not the case. He conducted interviews with those involved and various experts. These are obviously more qualified than him, you or I. You need to stop pretending you know better than someone who did proper research and various actual nuclear experts.

This isn't a contended fact. Maybe this snipped from an old documentary will convince you. Note the quote by Vassili Nesterenko, a top nuclear physicist who was present at the site. "Our experts studied the possibility and concluded that the explosion would have had a force of 3-5 megatonnes. Minsk, which is 320km from Chernobyl, would have been razed, and Europe rendered uninhabitable." This is seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev. I assume you know who he is and how well informed he would have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYYBdcA1lo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYYBdcA1lo)

Or maybe the words of Ukrainian President Proshenko as he awarded the three men preventing the disaster an award for the very act of preventing this massive disaster.

"On the fifth day after the accident, a so-called steam explosion was threatened. The reactor core could penetrate the lower protective plate of the reactor design and the concrete floor and get into the bubbler pool filled with cold water. It is difficult to even imagine what would happen if the molten core of the reactor touched water"said the President. "Three people, volunteers, volunteered for this courageous act, even if it became the last in the life of each of the three heroes. Despite the enormous risks, despite the extreme conditions, the operation was successful - the lives of thousands of people were saved."

(https://static.ukrinform.com/photos/2018_04/1524743085-8523.jpeg)

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukrinform.ru%2Frubric-society%2F2449795-prezident-vrucil-nagrady-geroamlikvidatoram-i-rabotnikam-caes.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukrinform.ru%2Frubric-society%2F2449795-prezident-vrucil-nagrady-geroamlikvidatoram-i-rabotnikam-caes.html)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 27, 2018, 08:49:45 pm
No scaremongering, you got to be kidding. Is that an excerpt from the same documentary that claimed the three engineers died directly afterwards from radiation poisoning? The ones that turned out to be alive and healthy and still working in the nuclear energy industry?

You keep pretending Leatherbarrow made these estimations himself, but that's obviously not the case. He conducted interviews with those involved and various experts. These are obviously more qualified than him, you or I. You need to stop pretending you know better than someone who did proper research and various actual nuclear experts.
This might come as a surprise to you but when it comes to technical subjects it often turns out I know better than journalists and it's also common for them not to do proper research. I'm sure many others on this forum have had the same experience. Leatherbarrow can easily have made up, exaggerated and/or misunderstood what others told him and can also have misjudged the credibility of the people he interviewed. I still know nothing about his background. If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide some report/study from some credible institution. A TV-documentary and a book by an activist isn't credible basis for a serious discussion.

I don't see why I should be impressed by what politicians say either, although I can't disagree with this sentence: "It is difficult to even imagine what would happen if the molten core of the reactor touched water", indeed it is. If Gorbachev believed that it was so dangerous, do you not find it strange he didn't choose to shut down the remaining RBMK reactors. The Russians still have 11 in operation today.

Note the quote by Vassili Nesterenko, a top nuclear physicist who was present at the site.
That's the first expert comment you have found supporting what you claimed, unfortunately what he's saying sounds like hyperbole. It's hard to comment on it since we don't know what analysis he based that statement on. And this snippet from his Wikipedia page doesn't exactly instil a lot of confidence "As an expert on the subject and with his experience as a fire fighter, he threw liquid nitrogen containers from a helicopter on the burning reactor core."

The soviet government clearly panicked and didn't respond completely rationally at the time, that is well documented. But who can blame them, it was a terrible disaster, about 100 people died during the accident, it must have been a nightmare. Trying to assess and react to the development of the meltdown must have been very difficult. I do not doubt they considered the water in the basement a very serious threat at the time and maybe it could have been worse. It would be very hard to accurately determine what the probability of that actually happening or what the actual consequences would have been. It's not something that can be done on the back of an envelope. It's also strange that most thorough post accident analyses do not mention this "near miss" disaster that allegedly would have made most of Europe uninhabitable don't you think.

...
For balance, here is a documentary about the risk of sudden methane release caused by the GHG emissions from coal power plants:
"Countdown to Doomsday Methane Release"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuoaqoQ5vcQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuoaqoQ5vcQ)
All this scaremongering isn't really helping anyone, is it, it just makes everyone look stupid.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 27, 2018, 09:30:20 pm
I also think the second explosion video is wrong in the strength of the explosion possible from contact with water. No doubt this would have been bad, but the expected explosion would be minor (more like less than the initial explosion). Still it would have been bad as the steam could now transport parts of the nuclear fuel out. This would may not have changes the radiation very much, but the decay of plutonium takes 10s of thousands of years instead of some 30 years for cesium and strontium we have to worry about now. So the area near by would be contaminated for much longer, not just a few centuries. I doubt that the contact with water would have restarted the chain reaction - so it would be only the thermal and chemical energy. There is usually no way to start a real nuclear explosion form just adding a moderator.

Avoiding the contact to water was still a big achievement and made the recovery easier. Much of the later emissions would have likely gone east anyway. So it would be deeper into Russia. The wind from the east at the time of the disaster was an exception. Chances are it would not have gone so high and far too.

Still things could have been worse: the reactor was using rather fresh fuel - with a more normal fuel age there would have been several times the amount of radioactivity in the core - though the fresh fuel was also part of why the accident happened in the first place.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 27, 2018, 09:36:59 pm
I also think the second explosion video is wrong in the strength of the explosion possible from contact with water. No doubt this would have been bad, but the expected explosion would be minor (more like less than the initial explosion). Still it would have been bad as the steam could now transport parts of the nuclear fuel out. This would may not have changes the radiation very much, but the decay of plutonium takes 10s of thousands of years instead of some 30 years for cesium and strontium we have to worry about now. So the area near by would be contaminated for much longer, not just a few centuries. I doubt that the contact with water would have restarted the chain reaction - so it would be only the thermal and chemical energy. There is usually no way to start a real nuclear explosion form just adding a moderator.

Avoiding the contact to water was still a big achievement and made the recovery easier. Much of the later emissions would have likely gone east anyway. So it would be deeper into Russia. The wind from the east at the time of the disaster was an exception. Chances are it would not have gone so high and far too.

Still things could have been worse: the reactor was using rather fresh fuel - with a more normal fuel age there would have been several times the amount of radioactivity in the core - though the fresh fuel was also part of why the accident happened in the first place.
What makes you say this, considering actual experts disagree? It really surprises me how many people feel they know better, based on I'm not sure what exactly.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 27, 2018, 09:43:44 pm
No scaremongering, you got to be kidding. Is that an excerpt from the same documentary that claimed the three engineers died directly afterwards from radiation poisoning? The ones that turned out to be alive and healthy and still working in the nuclear energy industry?

This might come as a surprise to you but when it comes to technical subjects it often turns out I know better than journalists and it's also common for them not to do proper research. I'm sure many others on this forum have had the same experience. Leatherbarrow can easily have made up, exaggerated and/or misunderstood what others told him and can also have misjudged the credibility of the people he interviewed. I still know nothing about his background. If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide some report/study from some credible institution. A TV-documentary and a book by an activist isn't credible basis for a serious discussion.

I don't see why I should be impressed by what politicians say either, although I can't disagree with this sentence: "It is difficult to even imagine what would happen if the molten core of the reactor touched water", indeed it is. If Gorbachev believed that it was so dangerous, do you not find it strange he didn't choose to shut down the remaining RBMK reactors. The Russians still have 11 in operation today.

That's the first expert comment you have found supporting what you claimed, unfortunately what he's saying sounds like hyperbole. It's hard to comment on it since we don't know what analysis he based that statement on. And this snippet from his Wikipedia page doesn't exactly instil a lot of confidence "As an expert on the subject and with his experience as a fire fighter, he threw liquid nitrogen containers from a helicopter on the burning reactor core."

The soviet government clearly panicked and didn't respond completely rationally at the time, that is well documented. But who can blame them, it was a terrible disaster, about 100 people died during the accident, it must have been a nightmare. Trying to assess and react to the development of the meltdown must have been very difficult. I do not doubt they considered the water in the basement a very serious threat at the time and maybe it could have been worse. It would be very hard to accurately determine what the probability of that actually happening or what the actual consequences would have been. It's not something that can be done on the back of an envelope. It's also strange that most thorough post accident analyses do not mention this "near miss" disaster that allegedly would have made most of Europe uninhabitable don't you think.

...
For balance, here is a documentary about the risk of sudden methane release caused by the GHG emissions from coal power plants:
"Countdown to Doomsday Methane Release"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuoaqoQ5vcQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuoaqoQ5vcQ)
All this scaremongering isn't really helping anyone, is it, it just makes everyone look stupid.
Once more, I'm going to end the discussion here. At this point the disaster prevented has been corroborated conclusively with evidence up to and including a video recording of a nuclear expert who was at the actual site at the time stating this is how things were. The various pieces of evidence all point towards the same thing and there really is little room for doubt, no matter how inconvenient the facts are. If you're still arguing otherwise it obvious no amount of evidence is going to change that, which means we'll just be endlessly fouling up the thread again.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 12:30:28 pm
Back to the Netherlands where this topic originally was started over, although I was very sceptical about the TS and his emotional topictitle, there are now many scientists that are publicly starting the debate against the climate goals.

translated by google translate
Quote
In a manifesto - signed by 24 professors, engineers and other experts - it is stated that the proposed climate law leads directly to a disaster. 'The objectives are unachievable', you can read. 'Enforcement causes a catastrophe of poverty, cold and hunger. Economically, the Netherlands becomes a third world country.


Ⓒ SIMON WEEDA
The epistle, which has since been sent to 380 municipalities and 21 water boards, states that the investments of possibly hundreds of billions of euros are capital destruction.
These must be paid for by the citizens and can not be spent on, for example, care, education and housing.

Energy is of vital importance, is written, and the plans can absolutely not meet our needs.
After the 'gas outing', windmills, solar power and bio-energy can hardly replace the current energy supply.
Energy is indispensable for almost everything: food supply, homes, transport, heating, lighting, roads, all industry, agriculture, livestock farming and fishing.
We tumble, as we read, like a troop of lemmings into the abyss.

Guus Berkhout, one of the supporters of the alarm manifesto, states that the group of experts has for a long time started a discussion that is more substantive than is currently the case. "And that is not easy," acknowledges Berkhout, who was, among other things, a professor of geophysics at Delft University of Technology, and at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"The Netherlands is changing in a Third World country"
"People are fully told that CO2 is the cause of all problems, which is simply not true. I hope that the population will receive better information, good information. So they know that there is another story. But how do you get there now? Almost all media do not want to know anything about it. If you have doubts about the CO2 story, all doors will close. While it is not poison gas, it is a fundamental building block for all life on earth. The more CO2, the greener the earth. Nobody can hear that hard fact. "

In the management layer, reports the epistle, the technical knowledge is virtually zero. There are also quite a few people who have an interest in the current 'climate'. That also says engineer Peter Oosterling, expert in the field of energy supply. He explains that the climate debate is a battle between 'alpha and beta', between emotion and science. "Many politicians are assisted by experts who talk and write to their mouths, and want to keep on working in the 'earning money mode'."

According to him, the climate is 'a super-technical and super-physically difficult subject', which is also not new at all. "The 'problem' has been around for decades. Only people like Al Gore have entered the political world agenda, and by alarmists like Ed Nijpels and Diederik Samsom on the Dutch agenda. "

Oosterling has serious doubts about their story with many independent co-scientists. "There is no evidence that there will be a desired effect in the current climate plans on the so-called CO2 problem, let alone that we could influence this global process. We scientists have a clear story, where we can supply all available data. The climate system is so complex, and it takes such a long time to react to a man-made input, that it is foolish to make such statements about it and to believe that we can achieve a flattening or reduction over the next decades. observe. "

Berkhout gives a lot of lectures about the subject. "Every time people are completely surprised again. The indoctrination is so serious. It is also incomprehensible that the environmental clubs are trying to pull the trolley from the climate lobby. Climate and environment are two completely different issues. "

Also where the money goes, provides care. Oosterling: "That undoubtedly goes to the clubs and supporters of climate pulp Nijpels, that of Samsom, and to other stakeholders in the climate industry."

Contrary to people who deserve it, the authors of the manifesto are, according to their own words, mainly independent. Oosterling: "I have no interest, no political connection. But I find it insane that we want to destroy so much unnecessary capital and that the citizen is spelled a terrifying story. "

He explains the link with the unrest in France. "There, the movement of the Yellow Hesjes arose after the prices for petrol and diesel went up. But why did that happen? Because President Macron needed money for his climate goals, to go along with the story of CO2 reduction. While France is the least CO2-emitting country in Europe. You also see it in the Netherlands. The referendum has not been abolished for nothing. If people have more knowledge, they will also revolt here. "
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 29, 2018, 02:04:31 pm
From time to time the doubt in the climate effect of CO2 comes up. Quite often there are companies behind this, even if the web sites usually claim to be independent. From the scientific side the topic is not easy and much effects do not directly reflect our normal experience. A little like with nano-technologie thiks happen at scales we are not used to - this time with large numbers and over a long time scales. With such a difficult topic there are points that can be confusing.  However most of the points that usually come up every few years are rather stupid and easy to prove false.

Still people can get tricked to believe in conspiracy theories.  Part of this maybe because the human made climate change in an inconvenient effect - if taken serious we should for moral reasons drastically change our way of life to save the planet for future generations. So it convenient to look hard for reasons to have doubt so one has an excuse to not do the right thing.

However with such a serious topic like changing our climate doubt is not a good excuse.  The need to prove in more in the other direction: we should not chance the chemistry of the atmosphere so much and for a long time unless we are sure that this has no negative effect. So doubt should be enough to stop burning coal. This might explain why the critics often come up with so many points including obvious nonsense.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 02:23:23 pm
The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict. If there is any effect then how is there any certainty it can be stopped or reversed? IMHO many people are overestimating the power we actually have over nature. Also conservatism is a major obstacle. The earth is changing continuously by itself.

My (long time) opinion is that reducing use of fossil fuels is good for two things for sure 1) to not rely on unstable eastern / middle eastern governments 2) fossil fuels will run out at some point. Scaremongering helps to push people to spend money on more efficient use of energy. After all 'preventing climate change' is also a huge business opportunity and everyone wants a piece of the pie. What the governments are doing is aiming high but in the end I doubt anything serious will happen. Rain & wind are just a nuisance. Build better homes.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 29, 2018, 04:02:00 pm
The scientific basis can be found here:
EDIT https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) (the sixth isn't done yet, sorry)
IPCC sixth assessment report, the scientific basis (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/)

Lots of scientific organisations have made public statements regarding the science of climate change:
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing)

Some counterarguments I've seen have been reasonable but if you do some digging it turns out they have been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community a long time ago (like Svensmark). Most counterarguments turns out to be complete nonsense though.

The problem is that a lot of people own coal mines, oil wells, coal power plants, etc. They don't want us to stop using fossil fuel. Some of them are incredibly powerful like President Bush, President Putin and King Salman; others are just super rich like the Koch brothers in the US who finance a lot of anti-climate change stuff. Then we have lots of companies that are heavily invested in fossil fuels as well.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 29, 2018, 04:03:19 pm
The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict.

The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties. Just look at the IPCC reports (which you may or may not agree with), but even those clearly show that we can't predict that reliably, and they are pretty much what most governments base their climate politics on at this point using two main arguments IMO: first the precautionary principle (which can be a good thing, but it's a shame we conveniently fail to apply it to a lot of other domains) and second, the observed relatively short-term (on a climate change scale) increase in world temperatures.

But the main issue here is not even whether reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect or not. For one thing, reducing CO2 emissions usually implies reducing emissions of a lot of pollutants due to combustion (combustion of fossil fuels in the real world rarely only emits CO2), which is obviously beneficial. Think of major air pollution in cities like Beijing. The issue is that the only countries that have launched actions towards this goal at this point only contribute very marginally to the global CO2 emissions, and there is no sign of the major contributors doing anything significant about it at least for the coming decades. So it's pretty much like pissing in the ocean, while only raising energy costs locally for negligible positive impact on climate. Yet, this can only be positive for local pollution. CO2 should NOT be the main reason we stop using fossil fuels IMO. This CO2 obsession doesn't serve the goal as it should. Again it's based on uncertain models whereas there are a lot of very certain impacts we talk about a lot less.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 29, 2018, 04:07:13 pm
The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties.
It would be weird if they did not.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 04:24:09 pm
The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict.
But the main issue here is not even whether reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect or not. For one thing, reducing CO2 emissions usually implies reducing emissions of a lot of pollutants due to combustion (combustion of fossil fuels in the real world rarely only emits CO2), which is obviously beneficial.
Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 29, 2018, 04:49:27 pm
The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict.
But the main issue here is not even whether reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect or not. For one thing, reducing CO2 emissions usually implies reducing emissions of a lot of pollutants due to combustion (combustion of fossil fuels in the real world rarely only emits CO2), which is obviously beneficial.
Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.

Acid rain can (and has been) mitigated.

The principal fossil fuel pollutant cannot be mitigated. When fully combusted, fossil fuel is turned into CO2 and H2O, The H2O isn't a problem, but the CO2 certainly is a problem.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 29, 2018, 04:50:42 pm
Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.
That is what it is all about, stricter emission limits for CO2 and other GhGs. That just shows it is possible to improve things if there is political will.

Air pollution from fossil fuel burning (mainly coal) kills about 0.03% every year in Sweden... That would correspond to about 150 000 in the EU for example. Smog is a huge problem in many cities. If it was so easy to filter out then why aren't we already?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 05:04:52 pm
Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.
That is what it is all about, stricter emission limits for CO2 and other GhGs. That just shows it is possible to improve things if there is political will.

Air pollution from fossil fuel burning (mainly coal) kills about 0.03% every year in Sweden... That would correspond to about 150 000 in the EU for example. Smog is a huge problem in many cities. If it was so easy to filter out then why aren't we already?
Politics work slow and it takes time for new regulations to have effect.

@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 29, 2018, 05:13:01 pm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 29, 2018, 05:19:32 pm
Why the fuck are we in the EU if our tiny fucking little nation will try to value signal entirely alone? What is that supposed to fucking accomplish? Installing wind mills and making industrial electricity cheap helps industry competitiveness at least, while raising consumer electricity prices and lowering disposable income, just like in Germany ... but what my government is trying now will murder our economy.
That is a fair point: unless the US, China, India, etc, also does something it doesn't really matter what a small country like  the Netherlands does. Someone got to be first though, and there are benefits to being first as well, but in the end there has to be some sort of international plan and agreement to limit GhG emissions or it won't matter.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 05:21:57 pm
@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.
It is a pollutant, as the definition of that is "A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource". It's a greenhouse gas. The additional energy retained by the atmosphere makes for much more violent weather systems, which we're already seeing. Plants will love the higher temperatures and added CO2, but we will suffer significantly.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 05:32:22 pm
@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.
It is a pollutant, as the definition of that is "A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource". It's a greenhouse gas. The additional energy retained by the atmosphere makes for much more violent weather systems, which we're already seeing. Plants will love the higher temperatures and added CO2, but we will suffer significantly.
In that case vulcanos, earthquakes and storms are pollutants too... For us humans it is a matter of adapting. If you live in an area which is likely to flood when the sea levels rise then consider moving. If you are a farmer with diminishing yield then you should think hard about alternatives. Climate change isn't going away so you can either complain and suffer or adapt to the new reality.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 05:53:58 pm
In that case vulcanos, earthquakes and storms are pollutants too... For us humans it is a matter of adapting. If you live in an area which is likely to flood when the sea levels rise then consider moving. If you are a farmer with diminishing yield then you should think hard about alternatives. Climate change isn't going away so you can either complain and suffer or adapt to the new reality.
Those aren't pollutants, but vulcanos can emit pollutants. The things you mention are true, but in no way change that you should probably attempt to mitigate what is about to hurt you. If you see you're about to crash, it's sensible to brake. Even if you're not sure it will help.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 06:13:53 pm
The problem is that a lot of people own coal mines, oil wells, coal power plants, etc. They don't want us to stop using fossil fuel. Some of them are incredibly powerful like President Bush, President Putin and King Salman; others are just super rich like the Koch brothers in the US who finance a lot of anti-climate change stuff. Then we have lots of companies that are heavily invested in fossil fuels as well.
Do you have some substantiated proof of these claims that these people are actively trying to do this, or is this another wild conspiracy theory?

You can also argue the opposite, who has the most to win with the environmental horror stories that we are being bombarded with. Do these powerfull people you name have no influence over the media at all?

I am feeling more and more that both sides are just extremes.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 06:20:17 pm
Do you have some substantiated proof of these claims that these people are actively trying to do this, or is this another wild conspiracy theory?

You can also argue the opposite, who has the most to win with the environmental horror stories that we are being bombarded with. Do these powerfull people you name have no influence over the media at all?

I am feeling more and more that both sides are just extremes.
It does seem obvious that people with large interests in the status quo are going to resist changes to a new state of being, much like how tobacco has attempted to slow and diffuse the notion that smoking is inherently unhealthy.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 06:25:17 pm
That is a fair point: unless the US, China, India, etc, also does something it doesn't really matter what a small country like  the Netherlands does. Someone got to be first though, and there are benefits to being first as well, but in the end there has to be some sort of international plan and agreement to limit GhG emissions or it won't matter.
I agree with doing nothing solves nothing, but do you know what our wise politicians now decided?
To leave the industries, airplanes, ships and farmers as they are and just start taxing petrol, gas and energy consumption for the people. They are scared the economy will be hit.
No wonder the environmental organizations did not cosign this, it is ludicrous because they leave the biggest polluters alone. Hyprocrits.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 06:32:42 pm
It does seem obvious that people with large interests in the status quo are going to resist changes to a new state of being, much like how tobacco has attempted to slow and diffuse the notion that smoking is inherently unhealthy.
Yes you would think so but if you look at the media, any media, it is only "we are doomed CO2 levels are kill g us" stories.
For organizations with that much money, influence and power they do a lousy job, or is there another side to the coin?
I remember that for instance Royal Shell spent huge amounts of money in the 90s towards new energy solutions, it was stopped when it was found that the oil reserves were larger than thought but still they know that some day their model of earning money is stopping.
SAU the same, they are looking for new ways of economic growth beyond the oil era.

The best we can do IMO is investing the money in finding new cleaner ways of producing energy, the faster we find something the sooner the issue will be solved.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 06:42:42 pm
Yes you would think so but if you look at the media, any media, it is only "we are doomed CO2 levels are kill g us" stories.
For organizations with that much money, influence and power they do a lousy job, or is there another side to the coin?
I remember that for instance Royal Shell spent huge amounts of money in the 90s towards new energy solutions, it was stopped when it was found that the oil reserves were larger than thought but still they know that some day their model of earning money is stopping.
SAU the same, they are looking for new ways of economic growth beyond the oil era.

The best we can do IMO is investing the money in finding new cleaner ways of producing energy, the faster we find something the sooner the issue will be solved.
Sure, you'd be stupid not to diversify if you're deep into traditional resources. That doesn't mean you wouldn't also try to make the most of your existing investments. It's just sound entrepreneurship, or seen as such. Take it as far as you can before jumping ship.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 29, 2018, 06:43:19 pm
@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant.

Yes, CO2 is a pollutant.

I appreciate English isn't your native language, so here's a couple of definitions of "pollutant":
"any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pollutant (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pollutant)
"something that pollutes" and pollute is "to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant)

Alternatively, if you are using a non-standard meaning of "pollutant", please define your meaning.

Quote
It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.

The plants may "like" CO2, but they don't like the temperature and climatic changes that go with increased CO2. See the reference @apis gave.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 07:00:28 pm
The plants may "like" CO2, but they don't like the temperature and climatic changes that go with increased CO2. See the reference @apis gave.
Wrong again. Just like animals plants migrate as well. Climate change isn't something new on earth! The whole idea 'my father grew corn here and so will my grandchildren' is wrong.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 29, 2018, 07:11:46 pm
The problem is that a lot of people own coal mines, oil wells, coal power plants, etc. They don't want us to stop using fossil fuel. Some of them are incredibly powerful like President Bush, President Putin and King Salman; others are just super rich like the Koch brothers in the US who finance a lot of anti-climate change stuff. Then we have lots of companies that are heavily invested in fossil fuels as well.
Do you have some substantiated proof of these claims that these people are actively trying to do this, or is this another wild conspiracy theory?
It's hardly a secret. I assume you didn't question that there is a lot of money in oil, coal and gas? Is it surprising the owners of those resources wouldn't wan't them loose value?

I would completely spam the thread if I would go into details but it's easy to google. Here are some more or less random quotes, all from the first page hits on google:
Quote
In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the Bush administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.[3]
Quote
Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)

Quote
Prescott's connections and wealth helped his son, George H W Bush, make a fortune in the oil industry before he entered politics in the 1960s and eventually became the 41st president.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12846098 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12846098)

Quote
It was called the “No Climate Tax” pledge, drafted by a new group called Americans for Prosperity that was funded by the Koch brothers. Its single sentence read: “I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html)

Quote
Koch is also long on the richest – but also the dirtiest and most carbon-polluting – oil deposits in North America: the tar sands of Alberta. The company’s Pine Bend refinery, near St. Paul, Minnesota, processes nearly a quarter of the Canadian bitumen exported to the United States – which, in turn, has created for Koch Industries a lucrative sideline in petcoke exports. Denser, dirtier and cheaper than coal, petcoke is the dregs of tar-sands refining.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-164403/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-164403/)

It's a little harder with Putin since their government isn't as transparent:
Quote
The Kremlin source based his estimate on Putin’s alleged stakes in several companies, mostly in the oil sector. He said the Russian president controlled 37% of the oil company Surgutneftegaz, 4.5% of natural gas company Gazprom, and had substantial holdings in a commodities trader called Gunvor.
http://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/?# (http://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/?#)

I'll leave king Salman as an excersice for the reader.

or not
Quote
Saudi Arabia fought hard to prevent the launch of negotiations on what became the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Further, Saudi Arabia has adopted a skeptical attitude toward climate change science, paying more attention to uncertainties and downplaying potential impacts. This was clear from its efforts to water down the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Assessment Reports, including the Second Assessment Report in 1996 and the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.
https://agsiw.org/saudi-arabia-and-climate-change-from-systematic-obstructionism-to-conditional-acceptance/ (https://agsiw.org/saudi-arabia-and-climate-change-from-systematic-obstructionism-to-conditional-acceptance/)

US joins Saudi Arabia, Russia to weaken climate change report (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/09/us-joins-saudi-arabia-russia-to-weaken-climate-change-report/) ::)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 07:16:05 pm
Wrong again. Just like animals plants migrate as well. Climate change isn't something new on earth! The whole idea 'my father grew corn here and so will my grandchildren' is wrong.
You're essentially suggesting we just abandon large parts of the world as they become uninhabitable due to weather systems becoming more energetic. This inevitably leads to famine, as we'd lose huge swathes of agricultural land. This in turn will lead to a desperate struggle between the survivors for the remaining resources, probably triggering a world wide armed conflict. That's essentially the adapting to the circumstances you suggest. It sounds like a marvellous plan.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 29, 2018, 07:19:33 pm
The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties.
It would be weird if they did not.
The climate models have quite some uncertainties. But the case of no or an opposite effect of CO2 is still very unlikely.

The uncertainty also does not make it better to burn more coal. It is more to the opposite: The expected damage from an increasing temperature is expected to go up faster than linear with the temperature. With uncertainty in the temperature rise we have to take the chance of a stronger effect serious as it would be much more damaging. So the larger the uncertainty the more careful we should be burning more coal.

Besides the temperature rise, there is also the PH of the oceans that is effected by CO2. Here the model is much easier to understand.

......
That is a fair point: unless the US, China, India, etc, also does something it doesn't really matter what a small country like  the Netherlands does. Someone got to be first though, and there are benefits to being first as well, but in the end there has to be some sort of international plan and agreement to limit GhG emissions or it won't matter.
Even small countries can have quite some impact. Though not as small as the Netherlands, the support for wind and PV in Germany from the late 1990 on gave quite a boost the the development of these source. This still helps installations from China to the US.
Especially China s doing quite a lot against rising CO2 emissions, though they slowed down in keeping the population in bounds.

India is a problem - not so much with the emissions, but with population growth. Some seem to forget about the dangers of over-population over there fear of climate chance. It gets very hard to keep CO2 in bounds if the population grows fast. Hear India really has to do quite radical steps - or chances are nature will do that.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 07:21:10 pm
Wrong again. Just like animals plants migrate as well. Climate change isn't something new on earth! The whole idea 'my father grew corn here and so will my grandchildren' is wrong.
You're essentially suggesting we just abandon large parts of the world as they become uninhabitable due to weather systems becoming more energetic. This inevitably leads to famine, as we'd lose huge swathes of agricultural land. This in turn will lead to a desperate struggle between the survivors for the remaining resources, probably triggering a world wide armed conflict. That's essentially the adapting to the circumstances you suggest. It sounds like a marvellous plan.
No. Other land will become suitable to grow food and yields can be improved. What never ceases to amaze me is that the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. IOW: you can grow a sh*tload on a small piece of land if you put the effort in.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 07:37:16 pm
No. Other land will become suitable to grow food and yields can be improved. What never ceases to amaze me is that the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. IOW: you can grow a sh*tload on a small piece of land if you put the effort in.
We're going to need some solid sources for other land becoming suitable and it being able to sustain the current and expected world population. We're constantly on the limit of what we're able to provide and massive amounts of upheaval isn't promising to do wonders.

It really seems you have an overly rosy view of the mess further global warming can bring. If it were as easy as "just move somewhere else" the world's scientists wouldn't worry as much as they do.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 07:46:07 pm
I'm just being realistic. The thing is that the changes aren't going to happen overnight. Rising sea levels won't cause a sudden mass migration but people will start to move inland. Existing farm land won't be useless from one day to the other. Needing more food will mean that more land will be cultivated and made ready for farming. Think about molten tundra. Higher food prices will make that worthwhile. Being poor will still suck but is that any different than today? Lots of people starving in Africa since the 1980's.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 07:56:22 pm
I'm just being realistic. The thing is that the changes aren't going to happen overnight. Rising sea levels won't cause a sudden mass migration but people will start to move inland. Existing farm land won't be useless from one day to the other. Needing more food will mean that more land will be cultivated and made ready for farming. Think about molten tundra. Higher food prices will make that worthwhile. Being poor will still suck but is that any different than today? Lots of people starving in Africa since the 1980's.
It is going to be fairly sudden, though. Many coastal areas are quite flattish, which means that beyond a certain point suddenly large areas start flooding. Compounding that is that most people around the world tend to live in coastal areas. This both means flooding and the subsequent displacement isn't a nice incremental affair. It's going to be fairly horrid and dramatic. Of course, just supposing that cultivated land is easily replaced is not really being realistic. Just wanting it to be true doesn't make it so. Do you have anything to back your ideas up?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 08:05:24 pm
Define flattish... and you don't have to move if the sea is about to flood the land. Just built a wall or a dyke. Also flooding may become part of life. Look at Venice. That gets flooded at least once a year. Not to mention many cities in Europe along rivers which already deal with flooding. In Paris they close down the roads along the Seine when the water level gets too high. No biggy.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 08:10:22 pm
Define flattish... and you don't have to move if the sea is about to flood the land. Just built a wall or a dyke. Also flooding may become part of life. Look at Venice. That gets flooded at least once a year. Not to mention many cities in Europe along rivers which already deal with flooding. In Paris they close down the roads along the Seine when the water level gets too high. No biggy.
Venice is a terrible example of things working out, as they're frantically trying to figure out how to save the city before it gets swallowed by the encroaching sea. Claims it will all work out seem terribly naive considering the worries the informed scientific community around the world has about this. If it really were as easy as building dikes and moving a bit when you feet get wet, we wouldn't have heard about it in the first place. We really need a lot more solid sources to counter those of the scientific community at large for this idea to have any credibility.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 08:17:48 pm
You are still assuming something can be done about rising temperatures. Unfortunately the sun has also increased it's activity during the last century which isn't helping to keep the earth's temperature down. At some point you have to let go of conservatism. Venice just won't exist forever.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 08:21:51 pm
You are still assuming something can be done about rising temperatures. Unfortunately the sun has also increased it's activity during the last century which isn't helping to keep the earth's temperature down. At some point you have to let go of conservatism. Venice just won't exist forever.
Your "solution" is to sit tight and let everything go to shreds. That's not really a solution, is it? Regardless of whether anything can actually be done, the sensible approach is to at least try your hardest if the alternative is widespread pain and suffering. Displacement on a large scale has never gone without it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on December 29, 2018, 08:31:58 pm
Wrong again. Just like animals plants migrate as well. Climate change isn't something new on earth! The whole idea 'my father grew corn here and so will my grandchildren' is wrong.
You're essentially suggesting we just abandon large parts of the world as they become uninhabitable due to weather systems becoming more energetic. This inevitably leads to famine, as we'd lose huge swathes of agricultural land. This in turn will lead to a desperate struggle between the survivors for the remaining resources, probably triggering a world wide armed conflict. That's essentially the adapting to the circumstances you suggest. It sounds like a marvellous plan.
No. Other land will become suitable to grow food and yields can be improved. What never ceases to amaze me is that the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. IOW: you can grow a sh*tload on a small piece of land if you put the effort in.

I didn't realise you were an expert on soil mechanics and farming. Where did you get that expertise?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 08:52:56 pm
You are still assuming something can be done about rising temperatures. Unfortunately the sun has also increased it's activity during the last century which isn't helping to keep the earth's temperature down. At some point you have to let go of conservatism. Venice just won't exist forever.
Your "solution" is to sit tight and let everything go to shreds. That's not really a solution, is it? Regardless of whether anything can actually be done, the sensible approach is to at least try your hardest if the alternative is widespread pain and suffering. Displacement on a large scale has never gone without it.
Quite the opposite: as I wrote before: adapt  (or die). Adapting is far from doing nothing!

Also mass displacement due to rising sealevels or drought isn't necessary. It just takes infrastructure to keep the sea out and water in to allow to grow crops. The infrastructure will need to be adapted or build according to changing circumstances. This isn't rocket science. It just takes the politicians to see the problem and spend money on it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 09:16:08 pm
Quite the opposite: as I wrote before: adapt  (or die). Adapting is far from doing nothing!

Also mass displacement due to rising sealevels or drought isn't necessary. It just takes infrastructure to keep the sea out and water in to allow to grow crops. The infrastructure will need to be adapted or build according to changing circumstances. This isn't rocket science. It just takes the politicians to see the problem and spend money on it.
Adapting is the mandatory part. Mitigating the causes of the problem is optional, but strongly recommended. Just keeping your foot on the pedal when you know a wall is coming up is for the foolhardy.

You keep being very cavalier about how easily the problems are solved or mitigated. You'll really need to provide more than "she'll be right" if that's going to have any credibility, especially considering your ideas seem quite different than those of most actual experts around the world. An example would be that the current strategy in the US is not to protect the coastal areas and to repair the damage caused by hurricanes and other disasters of similar nature. They opted for this approach because the US coastline is much too expansive to build extended coastal defences along its entire length. Yet your proposed solution is to do pretty much exactly that. With rising sea waters and ever more violent weather systems the defences you propose will need to be even more extensive and expensive. It'd probably be good to explain what you know that all the experts don't and provide a fair amount of fairly solid evidence to support it. Just handwaving the problems away isn't enough.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 09:28:22 pm
I don't have to prove anything. My ancestors have been battling with water for over 400 years in a country of which half lies below sea level. I'm just stating what is possible given there is money to throw at the problem. Actually Dutch waterwork companies are very active at the coast line of the Gulf of Mexico (for example: https://livingwithwater.com/blog/urban_water_plan/reports/ ). But sure, land that isn't worth protecting doesn't get protected. Why would anyone do that? Also the US approach is appearantly also to adapt and move away. The US is big enough to allow such a solution. IMHO you are way too much focussed on keeping things as they are right now (conservatism). That just doesn't hold up -climate change or not-.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 09:43:36 pm
I don't have to prove anything. My ancestors have been battling with water for over 400 years in a country of which half lies below sea level. I'm just stating what is possible given there is money to throw at the problem. Actually Dutch waterwork companies are very active at the coast line of the Gulf of Mexico (for example: https://livingwithwater.com/blog/urban_water_plan/reports/ ). But sure, land that isn't worth protecting doesn't get protected. Why would anyone do that? Also the US approach is appearantly also to adapt and move away. The US is big enough to allow such a solution. IMHO you are way too much focussed on keeping things as they are right now (conservatism). That just doesn't hold up -climate change or not-.
Of course you don't have to prove anything. It just means your claims don't hold any water, if you'll pardon my pun. The US approach isn't adapting and moving away, it's repairing what's been destroyed. That's not a viable strategy in the long run as things get progressively worse. Protecting it all isn't either, so you'll inevitably get the displacement and all the massive negatives that go alongside it. That's not a solution by a long shot. That's just trying to stay afloat in the river of shit coming your way.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 09:57:52 pm
Maybe the people don't see the river of shit coming yet. I'm under the impression there is not much long term planning going on in the US anyway. But that doesn't mean this is true everywhere else. Water management is a well understood science. And even if land gets flooded it can always be reclaimed if necessary later on.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 10:11:53 pm
Maybe the people don't see the river of shit coming yet. I'm under the impression there is not much long term planning going on in the US anyway. But that doesn't mean this is true everywhere else. Water management is a well understood science. And even if land gets flooded it can always be reclaimed if necessary later on.
We can endlessly go back and forth, but if it all were that easy the experts wouldn't raise the alarm the way they do now. The scale and magnitude really are completely different than anything we've seen before. Anything we can do to mitigate the pain and suffering these large scale displacements are going to cause it welcome.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 10:21:25 pm
Agreed but I don't share your fear about instantaneous massive displacements or sudden extreme climate changes making land uninhabitable or unsuitable for farming . Sure last summer has been extreme in parts of Europe but there have been extreme summers (and winters) before. One's memory isn't a good guideline. You have to look at the numbers and long term trends. And measures can be built incremental so they don't cost a fortune. For example: in the Netherlands we are not raising the dykes by 2 meters so they are future proof for the next century. The dykes get raised to meet the current situation. If the water level rises then the dykes get raised more.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 10:29:49 pm
Agreed but I don't share your fear about instantaneous massive displacements or sudden extreme climate changes making land uninhabitable or unsuitable for farming . Sure last summer has been extreme in parts of Europe but there have been extreme summers (and winters) before. One's memory isn't a good guideline. You have to look at the numbers and long term trends. And measures can be built incremental so they don't cost a fortune. For example: in the Netherlands we are not raising the dykes by 2 meters so they are future proof for the next century. The dykes get raised to meet the current situation. If the water level rises then the dykes get raised more.
I'm not reporting from memory. I'm reporting what environmental scientists and agricultural experts tell us. An already unaffordable situation isn't going to get more affordable as it gets more extreme. It's nice the Dutch get to keep their feet dry, but the rest of the world is going to have serious and massive issues.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 10:34:31 pm
Nico is right, if you can't save it you abandon it.
Here is a list of lost cities in our provence Zeeland a couple of hundred years ago, they could not do anything about it so that was it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flooded_villages_in_Zeeland

Now here I go on a limb but looking at the devistation in the US of hurricane Katrina in 2005 if that happened almost every year, my guess is that people would leave and abandon the land.
There is just so much a community can take.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 10:49:29 pm
Nico is right, if you can't save it you abandon it.
Here is a list of lost cities in our provence Zeeland a couple of hundred years ago, they could not do anything about it so that was it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flooded_villages_in_Zeeland

Now here I go on a limb but looking at the devistation in the US of hurricane Katrina in 2005 if that happened almost every year, my guess is that people would leave and abandon the land.
There is just so much a community can take.
The problem is that it's not the same place every time. The coastline is massive and the impact is felt in different places. Katrina was a bad one, but Sandy and others were really quite bad too. That will happen more and more as more and increasingly powerful hurricanes ravage the US coastline. Of course, the US is a fairly wealthy nation. Most nations will have much more trouble rebuilding anything. If you look at the costliest hurricanes in US history, just the 2017 hurricanes cost about $300 billion, or close to three Katrinas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 11:12:55 pm
Of course, the US is a fairly wealthy nation. 
It is one of three countries with the largest debt per capita in the world  :o

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/DEBT1@DEBT/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/USA (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/DEBT1@DEBT/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/USA)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 11:20:34 pm
It is one of three countries with the largest debt per capita in the world  :o

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/DEBT1@DEBT/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/USA (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/DEBT1@DEBT/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/USA)
Let's not get into that discussion here. Let's just say they have the ability to rebuild.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 29, 2018, 11:27:08 pm
Seeing the damage a hurricane does in the US I kinda wonder why they keep building their homes so fragile. I've been watching some US home improvement shows and the build quality isn't very high. Mostly wood. If homes where build from concrete and bricks they would survive a hurricane easely.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 11:30:37 pm
I don't know the cheaper the houses are built the quicker rebuild.
And besides if you look at our houseprices we might better start building cheaper houses ourselves  :)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 11:32:40 pm
Let's not get into that discussion here. Let's just say they have the ability to rebuild.
Ok let's not but the city that was ravaged in Katrina is still not fully rebuild AFAIK, and the US has 700 billion $ in technical infrastructure debt, so they must have different priorities then.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2018, 11:49:29 pm
Ok let's not but the city that was ravaged in Katrina is still not fully rebuild AFAIK, and the US has 700 billion $ in technical infrastructure debt, so they must have different priorities then.
New York has been much more adequately rebuilt. Coincidently New York is a more developed part of the US, as opposed to the much poorer New Orleans. It's not too hard to see how things are being prioritized, regardless of we agree with them. Maybe the takeaway is that even nations with some of the largest budgets can't even afford to rebuild the damage currently caused.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on December 29, 2018, 11:52:16 pm
That is a good take-away.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 30, 2018, 12:12:16 am
Ok let's not but the city that was ravaged in Katrina is still not fully rebuild AFAIK, and the US has 700 billion $ in technical infrastructure debt, so they must have different priorities then.
New York has been much more adequately rebuilt. Coincidently New York is a more developed part of the US, as opposed to the much poorer New Orleans. It's not too hard to see how things are being prioritized, regardless of we agree with them. Maybe the takeaway is that even nations with some of the largest budgets can't even afford to rebuild the damage currently caused.
I think it is a matter of priorities. In the US people pay much less income tax. This means that the government receives less money for clearing rubble, rebuilding and aiding people in need. Also the US spends a lot of money on their army. You can't just say that the US doesn't have enough money. It doesn't happen because people deem it unnecessary. Remember the US has some form of democracy so if people would find rebuilding important they'd vote for politicians who feel the same.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 30, 2018, 12:37:42 am
I think it is a matter of priorities. In the US people pay much less income tax. This means that the government receives less money for clearing rubble, rebuilding and aiding people in need. Also the US spends a lot of money on their army. You can't just say that the US doesn't have enough money. It doesn't happen because people deem it unnecessary. Remember the US has some form of democracy so if people would find rebuilding important they'd vote for politicians who feel the same.
That sounds fairly naive, to be honest. Ask New Orlean's citizens how they feel about that. Prepare for some strong language.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 30, 2018, 12:58:03 am
I think it is a matter of priorities. In the US people pay much less income tax. This means that the government receives less money for clearing rubble, rebuilding and aiding people in need. Also the US spends a lot of money on their army. You can't just say that the US doesn't have enough money. It doesn't happen because people deem it unnecessary. Remember the US has some form of democracy so if people would find rebuilding important they'd vote for politicians who feel the same.
That sounds fairly naive, to be honest. Ask New Orlean's citizens how they feel about that. Prepare for some strong language.
You'll hear the sound of someone who didn't got the home owner's insurance he/she should have gotten. OR got unlucky their rented home is no longer there.

In the Netherlands there is a government fund to cover damages caused by flooding. Ofcourse everyone pays tax to keep that fund floating. Such 'distribution of wealth' is likely to be frowned upon in the US. I don't know where you are from but there is a major difference in culture between the US and the western part of Europe when it comes to things like covering damages from natural dissasters. This makes it hard to compare the situation in the US and Europe. The US likely needs to go through a learning curve to understand that the government needs to be more involved in mitigating the effects of natural dissasters.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on December 30, 2018, 01:15:05 am
You'll hear the sound of someone who didn't got the home owner's insurance he/she should have gotten. OR got unlucky their rented home is no longer there.

In the Netherlands there is a government fund to cover damages caused by flooding. Ofcourse everyone pays tax to keep that fund floating. Such 'distribution of wealth' is likely to be frowned upon in the US. I don't know where you are from but there is a major difference in culture between the US and the western part of Europe when it comes to things like covering damages from natural dissasters. This makes it hard to compare the situation in the US and Europe. The US likely needs to go through a learning curve to understand that the government needs to be more involved in mitigating the effects of natural dissasters.
It seems you think the US hasn't learnt this yet. You'll find that typical Americans don't want that. They quickly see these things as government meddling.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on December 31, 2018, 04:36:46 am
The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties.
It would be weird if they did not.
The climate models have quite some uncertainties. But the case of no or an opposite effect of CO2 is still very unlikely.

The uncertainty also does not make it better to burn more coal. It is more to the opposite: The expected damage from an increasing temperature is expected to go up faster than linear with the temperature. With uncertainty in the temperature rise we have to take the chance of a stronger effect serious as it would be much more damaging. So the larger the uncertainty the more careful we should be burning more coal.
Besides the temperature rise, there is also the PH of the oceans that is effected by CO2. Here the model is much easier to understand.
That is a good point, the uncertainty means it could be a lot worse. I remember seeing a nice graph in AR5 showing the combined uncertainties in the radiative forcing:
(https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/Fig8-16-1-1024x702.jpg)
Figure 8.16 — Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing — IPCC (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/fig8-16-2/)

Even if there are large uncertainties, the probability mass of the total (the black curve) is completely in the "warming" side. Is it 1 or 3.5 W/m2? We should prepare for the worst case that it might be 3 or even 4 while we hope it's lower. Iirc they also write that the models have somewhat underestimated the warming so far.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on December 31, 2018, 08:52:32 pm
Apis, Dave's not too keen on climate change being discussed here because it leads to bust-ups. So I'll just say that there are two distinct issues here:
To me anyway first is uncertain. One the second there is no doubt, though. The answer is a definite No.

We've been installing wind turbines for over 20 years. Granted, the rate of installation has been much higher in this last decade. However, all that has been achieved by this  is to replace 1% or 2% of total world energy by wind power. If we say 10 years to achieve 2% as a best case, that still means 500 years to go '100% renewable' by that route. In this I'm not even considering measures to smooth out the fluctuations of wind power. So it's an absolute best case scenario. The reality is bound to be worse.

Solar PV can make some inroads, but its main problem is that most of the planet doesn't get enough year-round sun for it to be useful.

So if we want to solve the problem, we need to look elsewhere than the traditional renewables. I really think we should be developing thorium LFTR and fusion. More money is now being spent on wind and solar, easily by a factor of ten or more, than it would take to perfect those technologies in  the five or ten years the alarmists say we need a solution by.  We can do it that way. There is an element of gamble but if it pays off we're quids-in with a better energy system anyway, climate change or no. Sticking with the current approach just means colossal sums of money wasted, no solution, nothing gained. 

-If the option is between a gamble with a decent payout and certain failure.. which do you choose?   :-//
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on December 31, 2018, 09:05:11 pm
If you throw enough money at a problem you can solve it. JFK's famous 'men on the moon' speech was at the end of 1962. At the end of 1969 men where walking on the moon. If all the big economies would pitch in -like our lifes depend on it-, how long would it take to develop nuclear fusion?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on December 31, 2018, 09:44:10 pm
PV and wind alone can not provide all energy everywhere. However they can be quite effective in some areas.  Both need suitable places - PV in southern Spain or much of Australia gets about twice the output from a typical place in Germany or England. Similar with wind. At the good spots wind and PV are now very competitive as the good spots also mean less storage needed.

World wide Wind the installation of large scale wind power is just at the beginning,  if economic the best solution the rate of growth could easily be higher. However by now many of the good spots in the few countries really committed to wind start to be used up. Still the production in Germany has about doubled in the last 5-6 years and was providing some 18% of the electricity in 2016. So the build up can be reasonable fast. Overall Germany is not even a very windy country. Denmark should be now be > 50% wind.

Fusion is a difficult topic. The problem here is that the chances are falling that it would be cheap. At least chances are that the development is far enough to come to the conclusion that the costs would definitely be too high to compete with PV + storage.  No need to develop after that point.

The LFTR is a dead horse that sometime comes up again. So far the research did not give much hope and it was stopped in the 1970s for a good reason. Not much new came up since than, except the MRSE test reactor nearly blew up from inadequate storage. So more like new problems came up: French research essentially came to the conclusion that it can't be safe and breading at the same time - supporting the doubts from the 1970s with more detailed simulations. Chances are it is less viable than the fast breeder reactor, that still has problems.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on December 31, 2018, 09:56:48 pm
If you throw enough money at a problem you can solve it. JFK's famous 'men on the moon' speech was at the end of 1962. At the end of 1969 men where walking on the moon. If all the big economies would pitch in -like our lifes depend on it-, how long would it take to develop nuclear fusion?

Having fusion is useless if it's not cheap and we don't know the reasonable bounds on the cost of fusion plants. It might turn out the wear and tear costs using dirty deuterium fuel raise the price to 10x of current generation fission plants. Same might be true for the machinery necessary to reprocess the molten salt in a LFTR.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 12:49:07 am
Apis, Dave's not too keen on climate change being discussed here because it leads to bust-ups. So I'll just say that there are two distinct issues here:
  • Whether there is actually a problem
  • Whether the proposed fix will work
To me anyway first is uncertain. One the second there is no doubt, though. The answer is a definite No.

We've been installing wind turbines for over 20 years. Granted, the rate of installation has been much higher in this last decade. However, all that has been achieved by this  is to replace 1% or 2% of total world energy by wind power. If we say 10 years to achieve 2% as a best case, that still means 500 years to go '100% renewable' by that route. In this I'm not even considering measures to smooth out the fluctuations of wind power. So it's an absolute best case scenario. The reality is bound to be worse.

Solar PV can make some inroads, but its main problem is that most of the planet doesn't get enough year-round sun for it to be useful.

So if we want to solve the problem, we need to look elsewhere than the traditional renewables. I really think we should be developing thorium LFTR and fusion. More money is now being spent on wind and solar, easily by a factor of ten or more, than it would take to perfect those technologies in  the five or ten years the alarmists say we need a solution by.  We can do it that way. There is an element of gamble but if it pays off we're quids-in with a better energy system anyway, climate change or no. Sticking with the current approach just means colossal sums of money wasted, no solution, nothing gained.
My conclusion after having looked at this for many years is that we need to do everything, as much as we can, as long as it is reducing GhGs (unfortunately that also means energy reductions). To be safe we should emit zero GhGs for a while, and we should have begun doing that 10 years ago, we don't have time to be picky anymore.

We have been putting billions and billions into fusion research for decades and they are still saying "no commercial reactor within 30 years" so unfortunately we don't have time to wait for fusion (they don't even have materials that could survive in the tokamak for long enough to be used commercially). Had they been putting that money into solar we might have been far better of today though.

LFTR sounds good but I don't know enough about it, maybe Kleinstein is right. But there are plenty of other types of fission reactors that are a lot safer than the existing ones, like pebble bed reactors, to name one. And even if we continue building LWR reactors they are still safer than both coal and hydro power. At a minimum, we should not decommission fission reactors as long as they are replaced by coal or gas.

There is an enormous potential in sunlight, you can easily cover the worlds energy needs with a few percent of the worlds deserts. The problem is distributing that power (quite doable), and to even out the energy production between day and night (harder but might be doable). It's technically not that hard to build cables from the Sahara to continental Europe for example. A complete solution doesn't exist yet though, and while we wait we need all the other options (wind, nuclear, hydro, reduction).

(https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/image/7448160-3x2-700x467.jpg)
Image source: Big solar - Australian sunlight could power the planet (The science show, ABC) (https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/big-solar-%E2%80%93-australian-sunlight-could-power-the-planet/7451890)

Wind has the same problem as solar. Denmark produce more than 40% wind, Sweden is up over 10% now, so it's not insignificant, but they export excess to the rest of Europe and relies on Hydro in Norway and Sweden to act as storage. There isn't enough hydro globally that it can be a storage solution for everyone.

So is it doable? Well, technically it is I believe (with some sacrifices in form of energy reductions). The big question is if it is doable politically.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 01:24:51 am
The problem with electricity from solar is not the supply of energy but storage,  distribution and political stability. People will want generation of electricity inside the borders for reasons of political stability -> nuclear. Storage and/or distribution are likely more expensive than developing and building fusion reactors. Storage and distribution aren't developed and build overnight either.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 01:45:10 am
Quote
People will want generation of electricity inside the borders for reasons of political stability -> nuclear. Storage and/or distribution are likely more expensive than developing and building fusion reactors. Storage and distribution aren't developed and build overnight either.
Distribution isn't a problem, it just needs to be built, and I don't see why you think it will be more expensive than fusion, that is just silly. We already have high power undersea cables and distribute power hundreds of km with small losses.

We have long since abandoned any hope of energy independence, and it's not really desirable either, it's more efficient to share and interdependence is politically stabilising.

Storage is still a problem, which is why we need all the other other options to help balance the load.

Politics is a major hurdle though.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 01:48:49 am
Quote
People will want generation of electricity inside the borders for reasons of political stability -> nuclear. Storage and/or distribution are likely more expensive than developing and building fusion reactors. Storage and distribution aren't developed and build overnight either.
Distribution isn't a problem, it just needs to be built, and I don't see why you think it will be more expensive than fusion, that is just silly. We already have high power undersea cables and distribute power hundreds of km with small losses.
But these cables are a couple of hundred MW at most. If you want to take electricity from sunny places and create a follow-the-sun grid so no storage is needed then you are talking TW or more over tens of thousands of kilometers. That is not so cheap & simple to build and very sensitive to attacks.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 02:41:12 am
You can have more than one cable in parallel though. And the production and consumption will be spread out so it's doable. But I wasn't thinking of something as fancy as a follow-the-sun grid. If you just produce solar in Sahara, for example, and export that north to Europe, Europe wouldn't need coal during the day: voilà, coal is reduced by nearly 50%. In Australia it could even be 100% domestic. You would still have the coal plants on standby for emergency, so risk is minimal. And that is without any storage.

Examples of some underwater power cables
Baltic cable: 250 kilometres with a maximum transmission power of 600 megawatts
Basslink: 370 km 500 MW
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 01, 2019, 11:58:35 am
The existing light water reactors are not that bad when it comes to safety - they are actually really good in this respect compared to other concepts.

There are other concepts and a few prototypes of these, but they also have there problem.  Gas cooled reactors for example need even larger pressure vessels and cooling gets really tricky when the pressure is lost. The pebble bed idea did not work well either: its usually gas cooled and the graphite pebbles don't slight well once they get hot. The was a prototype reactor in Germany (THTR) that showed up quite a few problems. Also graphite moderation can be tricky with disposal and in case of an accident - burning graphite in the Chernobyl accident contributed to distribution of the radioactivity.
I would consider a pebble-bed reactor more of a problem or at least an economic bad idea.

I have read quite a bit in the LFTR, as at first it looked intriguing.  However with more readings the problems got obvious. For comparison to existing reactors the fast breeder reactor is a much better starting point. The concepts are surprisingly similar, including many of the problems. In direct comparison the LFTR is second to the uranium/plutonium concept in essentially all points:  more critical safety - though many proponents ignore this or suppress the information,  more chemical reprocessing, more difficult chemical reprocessing and thus higher costs,  slower breading, more difficult materials.

Especially the chemical reprocessing is kind of hoping for a magic much petter process. Getting Information here is difficult, as much of this is classified for a good reason. From the few information available: The Russians tried similar methods in the uranium cycle and did not get contemplative performance. The molten salt methods also seem to work better with uranium than thorium. Especially cleaning the thorium seems difficult. For fast breeders there are plans for using similar methods but but much lower requirements to purity. The difficulty to get high purity is given as an argument against proliferation concerns.

So this points to the LFTR being way inferior to the fast breeder in the U/Pu cycle.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 12:16:22 pm
You can have more than one cable in parallel though. And the production and consumption will be spread out so it's doable. But I wasn't thinking of something as fancy as a follow-the-sun grid. If you just produce solar in Sahara, for example, and export that north to Europe, Europe wouldn't need coal during the day: voilà, coal is reduced by nearly 50%. In Australia it could even be 100% domestic. You would still have the coal plants on standby for emergency, so risk is minimal. And that is without any storage.
AFAIK The problem with coal power plants is that the efficient ones cannot ramp up/down quick enough.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 01, 2019, 12:36:47 pm
Coal plants can ramp up at a reasonably speed.  Modern ones tend to be better than nuclear in this respect.

With renewable sources spread out over some area - which is needed anyway, the changes are not that fast anyway. Much of the change is also predictable.
It would not need that much storage to reduce the need for very fast changes. Besides coal, there would be also natural (and biological sourced) gas, that is more flexible.

Even though we need lights at night, the electricity consumption is still much higher during the day than at night. Especially the increasing need for air conditioning fits solar production reasonably well.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 01:08:10 pm
Even though we need lights at night, the electricity consumption is still much higher during the day than at night. Especially the increasing need for air conditioning fits solar production reasonably well.
Not if people have EVs at home which need charging during the night.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 05:27:42 pm
EVs could come with a spare battery, that way the spare can be charged during peak production. When you get home you replace the spent one in the car with the charged one. That way it also solves the long charging time problem.

Coal and nuclear can ramp up within minutes (hydro within seconds). So coal can adapt as long as the changes isn't too sudden (and unforeseen). Sunset and sunrise can be predicted very accurately, you can probably also predict how the cloud cover will change over the solar panels the next 20 minutes or so that would be necessary to make adjustments in advance.

The fuel pebbles in the pebble bed reactor use graphite as moderator, but the pebbles are encapsulated in silicon carbide which prevents the possibility of them catching fire. The reactor is self moderated and will not go above about 2000 C even if cooling fails, which the structure can deal with. No risk of steam explosions or buildup of hydrogen like you have in a water cooled reactor. If it's helium cooled, the helium is inert and also prevents any chance of fire. Helium can't chemically decompose into a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2 like water can. I've read that the german THTR reactor had some problems that made it uneconomical but there are other successful pebble bed reactors in the world. Anyway, I trust the nuclear physicists can figure out what is the best design.

Just read about a nice Canadian reactor design called slowpoke-3, that seems very safe and was intended to provide district heating, unfortunately anti-nuclear protests killed that one as well. Much nicer with a good old cosy coal furnace apparently. :palm:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 05:51:15 pm
EVs could come with a spare battery, that way the spare can be charged during peak production. When you get home you replace the spent one in the car with the charged one. That way it also solves the long charging time problem.
But you'd need the most expensive part of an EV twice making EVs even more uneconomical than they already are.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 05:59:53 pm
More expensive than ICEs are today perhaps, but it would still be a solution for those that need a car. Assuming you can wear out both batteries during the lifetime of the car the overall cost isn't higher. I.e. if you have to replace the battery once during the cars lifetime anyway.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 01, 2019, 06:18:00 pm
The THTR pebble bed reactor had troubles with the ball not sliding / moving as expected. So they god jammed and broken fuel balls. AFAIK the problems where due to the size and thus higher forces and the graphite / silicon-carbide surfaces behaving different in the clean helium atmosphere. They did not had the problems in the smaller test reactor build before and AFAIK all other pebble bed reactors where also smaller. Size a problem anyway, as the pressure vessel and needed containment as a backup gets difficult to build. This alone makes it a cost problem.

The THTR also had a relatively serious incident, that damaged the pressure vessel - so essentially damaging the reactor beyond repair. The accident happened just a few days after the Chernobyl disaster and thus did not get the normal attention.  In addition they could not get more of the special fuel, the breeding rate was lower than hoped for and the reprocessing turn out to be more complicated. So they never really started recycling the fuel. It is not only the thorium fuel but also the carbon balls that makes recycling difficult.

The problem with helium cooling is that once there is a leak in the helium flow, its difficult to add spare coolant. Nitrogen is less efficient. Without enough cooling a 2000 C stability would not help as the temperature could rise even further if things go wrong. There is no magic stop at 2000 C, especially for a large reactor. With a few broken fuel balls there could be hot spots developing.

I don't think spare batteries for EV are that attractive. In theory this may work, in a kind of swapping system as was already planed before fast charging got chosen. Swapping batteries would than be the alternative to waiting for a charge - this could be central and with batteries on lease. So no more second battery for every EV and batteries not owned with the EV but to a central service organization. At least for something like electric buses this could be a good system.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 06:46:20 pm
It was my impression that the 2000 C is a "magic" stop if you loose coolant, due to thermal broadening of the neutron spectrum. It would have to be 4000 C to be a danger to the carbide? That is why they are considered passively safe.

"There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe." Sounds like they shut it down due to panic after the Chernobyl accident. The problem doesn't sound like it has to do with the reactor design in general but rather that that specific reactor had under dimensioned feeder tubes.

I don't really understand why people don't like the battery swap solution, wouldn't prevent people from charging at home at the same time. The key social benefit would be that you can charge batteries during peak production. For the individual the benefit is that you can fill up the tank in a few minutes compared to the 20 or so hours you need for a full charge now (which means you solve the range problem). You also spread out the cost of a new battery so that people doesn't have to save up for a large investment in a new battery.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 07:12:44 pm
The problem with battery swapping is that it isn't a matter of pulling a pack out but dealing with a brick which is around 500kg. Making the battery swappable in an easy way probably has a severe impact on how the (self supporting) body of the car has to be designed an fabricated. There is a lot more to swapping batteries than you'd think.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 07:37:28 pm
Of course, you wouldn't do it by hand and there would have to be some standardisation of the batteries.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 08:28:39 pm
Assuming you can wear out both batteries during the lifetime of the car the overall cost isn't higher. I.e. if you have to replace the battery once during the cars lifetime anyway.
But you can't. Batteries degrade with age and not just cycles, so getting 2 batteries at the start won't give you anywhere near twice the lifetime of one, and it falls apart.

You might be able to do 10 years with 2 batteries (aka replacing the first one after 5, doing 5 more with the 2nd) but if you buy 2 on day one they'll both be dead after 6 years so you're not getting the value back.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 01, 2019, 08:31:18 pm
But you can't. Batteries degrade with age and not just cycles, so getting 2 batteries at the start won't give you anywhere near twice the lifetime of one, and it falls apart.

You might be able to do 10 years with 2 batteries (aka replacing the first one after 5, doing 5 more with the 2nd) but if you buy 2 on day one they'll both be dead after 6 years so you're not getting the value back.
I'm not sure batteries degrade that quickly over time. Can you support this?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 08:39:43 pm
We have long since abandoned any hope of energy independence
Yeah but it still stays within a pretty close geographical proximity, where "friendships" are easier to maintain... yet a "follow-the-sun grid" needs wide east-west geographical separation. And mentalities seem to make it harder to keep things in control on this axis than on the north-south one unfortunately...

There's recently been a mess about Russian gas supply to Europe...

If you just produce solar in Sahara, for example, and export that north to Europe, Europe wouldn't need coal during the day: voilà, coal is reduced by nearly 50%.

Examples of some underwater power cables
Baltic cable: 250 kilometres with a maximum transmission power of 600 megawatts
Basslink: 370 km 500 MW

Sahara to "North of Europe" is 10 times that distance. You'll lose so much as to make the whole point moot. Not to mention that bringing 600MW up there would be negligible.

My country is half the way, small, and from the numbers I can Google needs about 17TW. So your 600MW cable only covers a negligible 3.5%, and it runs 250km instead of the 1500 required.

Covering a minimally significant portion (say 10%?) of that geographical region would need would probably involve carrying 1000TW over an average of 1500km or so...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 08:44:05 pm
I'm not sure batteries degrade that quickly over time. Can you support this?
Been using various types of lithium batteries over 15 years now, some with regular use and some with most of their time spent on a shelf at storage level, and yes I sure can. Unless you put a REALLY low load on them after 5 years or so they're just done. Capacity may still be somewhat OK, but IR shoots up making them useless for most applications.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 01, 2019, 08:58:34 pm
Been using various types of lithium batteries over 15 years now, some with regular use and some with most of their time spent on a shelf at storage level, and yes I sure can. Unless you put a REALLY low load on them after 5 years or so they're just done. Capacity may still be somewhat OK, but IR shoots up making them useless for most applications.
Did you do any controlled testing? I have to admit I was after actual research, not personal anecdotal evidence.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 01, 2019, 09:01:33 pm
Yeah but it still stays within a pretty close geographical proximity, where "friendships" are easier to maintain... yet a "follow-the-sun grid" needs wide east-west geographical separation. And mentalities seem to make it harder to keep things in control on this axis than on the north-south one unfortunately...

There's recently been a mess about Russian gas supply to Europe...

Sahara to "North of Europe" is 10 times that distance. You'll lose so much as to make the whole point moot. Not to mention that bringing 600MW up there would be negligible.

My country is half the way, small, and from the numbers I can Google needs about 17TW. So your 600MW cable only covers a negligible 3.5%, and it runs 250km instead of the 1500 required.

Covering a minimally significant portion (say 10%?) of that geographical region would need would probably involve carrying 1000TW over an average of 1500km or so...
Doing long distance power transmission probably requires more modern solutions. There are various examples of superconductors being used for real world power transmission applications.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 09:07:27 pm
Not controlled and repeateable, good luck finding that, not many people will store a bunch of batteries for a decade with regular scientific level evaluation and post the results.
But I've taken "new" cells that had never seen a single cycle but sat 7 years in a drawer, used them to rebuild a laptop battery, and got a third of the expected runtime. Good luck finding an 8 year old laptop with more than a few minutes of battery life - whether it was used a lot or not. Got some used collectibles that were visibly barely used, but the battery was dead anyway.

Pretty consistent with several other RC model batteries I've had laying around. Take what you want out of it.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 09:09:11 pm
There are various examples of superconductors being used for real world power transmission applications.
I ceertainly would be excited to see a 1500km superconductor run!
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 09:12:00 pm
My country is half the way, small, and from the numbers I can Google needs about 17TW. So your 600MW cable only covers a negligible 3.5%, and it runs 250km instead of the 1500 required.
That can't be right. You are probably mistaken the annual use in TWh. Germany has about 200GW of generating capacity but half of that is wind + solar so let's say 100GW is enough for when there is no sun and wind. Austria is likely to need much less. I estimate Europe could be powered with 2 to 3TW of generating capacity. Still getting that kind of power across the mediteranian sea will be a huge technical challenge.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 01, 2019, 09:22:34 pm
Not controlled and repeateable, good luck finding that, not many people will store a bunch of batteries for a decade with regular scientific level evaluation and post the results.
But I've taken "new" cells that had never seen a single cycle but sat 7 years in a drawer, used them to rebuild a laptop battery, and got a third of the expected runtime. Good luck finding an 8 year old laptop with more than a few minutes of battery life - whether it was used a lot or not. Got some used collectibles that were visibly barely used, but the battery was dead anyway.

Pretty consistent with several other RC model batteries I've had laying around. Take what you want out of it.
I'm asking because it contradicts my own personal observations, which is one of the reasons I value personal anecdotal evidence little. It seems safe to assume the battery industry or an entity depending on that industry does these kinds of testing in a controlled manner. I've seen well used batteries become essentially useless or completely non-functional, but I've never seen reasonably stored batteries wear out as much without being used and certainly not that much within such a limited timespan.

Doing a little research shows that batteries do deteriorate when stored at elevated temperatures and while charged near capacity. I haven't found any actual numbers on how much after how long, or how this related to lower temperature and lower charge storage. Manufacturers do provide "best before" dates, but these don't appear to be very accurate as they ignore the conditions.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 09:26:16 pm
The problem is that there is no golden rule here. It depends on manufacturer and cell type. This information is only available under an NDA. However Toyota and Tesla have shown that with the right care a Li-ion cell can last very long.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 09:30:56 pm
That can't be right. You are probably mistaken the annual use in TWh. Germany has about 200GW of generating capacity but half of that is wind + solar so let's say 100GW is enough for when there is no sun and wind. Austria is likely to need much less. I estimate Europe could be powered with 2 to 3TW of generating capacity. Still getting that kind of power across the mediteranian sea will be a huge technical challenge.

Oops, 35.5GW indeed, tired... Rest of your numbers check out. Still a lot...
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 01, 2019, 09:32:36 pm
The problem is that there is no golden rule here. It depends on manufacturer and cell type. This information is only available under an NDA. However Toyota and Tesla have shown that with the right care a Li-ion cell can last very long.
It doesn't surprise me that the cells in their applications are cooled, which supports the notions that temperature is a significant factor in degradation.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 01, 2019, 09:42:57 pm
I'm asking because it contradicts my own personal observations, which is one of the reasons I value personal anecdotal evidence little. It seems safe to assume the battery industry or an entity depending on that industry does these kinds of testing in a controlled manner. I've seen well used batteries become essentially useless or completely non-functional, but I've never seen reasonably stored batteries wear out as much without being used and certainly not that much within such a limited timespan.ns.

I've also been working with people selling electric propulsion systems for small boats (typically low use), and the manufacturer of the components they distribute warranties their lithium batteries for 8 years... but they've precisely have had a whole lot of hassle to deal with because they all seem to become unsatisfactory after 5 years or so and so they've had a bunch to replace. On their own dime, cause the manufacturer always comes out with some kind of "they must have misused it" to get out of the terms they obviously wrote based on unrealistic expectations back then.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on January 01, 2019, 09:54:01 pm
Doing long distance power transmission probably requires more modern solutions. There are various examples of superconductors being used for real world power transmission applications.

The only reason to use superconducting cables is when you are space limited, when you have the room use HVDC.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 01, 2019, 10:11:17 pm
I've also been working with people selling electric propulsion systems for small boats (typically low use), and the manufacturer of the components they distribute warranties their lithium batteries for 8 years... but they've precisely have had a whole lot of hassle to deal with because they all seem to become unsatisfactory after 5 years or so and so they've had a bunch to replace. On their own dime, cause the manufacturer always comes out with some kind of "they must have misused it" to get out of the terms they obviously wrote based on unrealistic expectations back then.
I'd expect the same to happen to electrical or hybrid vehicles as they've been around for more than 5 years, but I don't think this generally is the case. Again, I'd love to see some controlled measurements being made on the supposed phenomenon. I'm currently not seeing a lot which suggests two batteries used at the same time will only last marginally longer than one.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 10:25:29 pm
Assuming you can wear out both batteries during the lifetime of the car the overall cost isn't higher. I.e. if you have to replace the battery once during the cars lifetime anyway.
But you can't. Batteries degrade with age and not just cycles, so getting 2 batteries at the start won't give you anywhere near twice the lifetime of one, and it falls apart.

You might be able to do 10 years with 2 batteries (aka replacing the first one after 5, doing 5 more with the 2nd) but if you buy 2 on day one they'll both be dead after 6 years so you're not getting the value back.
According to research I've seen lithium batteries have a very good shelf-life, but you have to treat them the right way. A lot of electronic equipment doesn't do that, they overcharge them and undercharge them and generally abuse them, either because of ignorance or because what matters is the initial capacity when the item is sold, not the capacity after a few years. In fact it might even be seen as an advantage if the consumer has to buy a new product because the battery failed (but that is another topic). EV batteries are in a different division, EV manufacturers know they need to do whatever they can to make the batteries last. There will be some degradation over time but it will be mostly the number of cycles that matters. Having battery stations like Kleinstein suggested doesn't have this "shelf life problem" though, so we could always go with that instead if you think I'm wrong about this.

We have long since abandoned any hope of energy independence
Yeah but it still stays within a pretty close geographical proximity, where "friendships" are easier to maintain... yet a "follow-the-sun grid" needs wide east-west geographical separation. And mentalities seem to make it harder to keep things in control on this axis than on the north-south one unfortunately...

There's recently been a mess about Russian gas supply to Europe...

If you just produce solar in Sahara, for example, and export that north to Europe, Europe wouldn't need coal during the day: voilà, coal is reduced by nearly 50%.

Examples of some underwater power cables
Baltic cable: 250 kilometres with a maximum transmission power of 600 megawatts
Basslink: 370 km 500 MW

Sahara to "North of Europe" is 10 times that distance. You'll lose so much as to make the whole point moot. Not to mention that bringing 600MW up there would be negligible.

My country is half the way, small, and from the numbers I can Google needs about 17TW. So your 600MW cable only covers a negligible 3.5%, and it runs 250km instead of the 1500 required.

Covering a minimally significant portion (say 10%?) of that geographical region would need would probably involve carrying 1000TW over an average of 1500km or so...
As I wrote before; I believe we need everything we got that can replace fossil fuels, including more nuclear, and we are probably still going to have to reduce power consumption. It's technically doable but the big question is if it is politically doable.

I don't believe solar and wind can replace everything over night (that is why I keep saying nuclear power is necessary) and I wasn't claiming we should try to replace all electricity in Europe with solar from Sahara. The point I was trying to make was that even without storage solar (and wind) can reduce GhG emissions significantly. It doesn't have to be produced in Sahara, but I believe some of it could. (Even that would be difficult for political reasons, but probably less of a problem than importing Russian gas.) Scandinavia doesn't really need to import any extra power, we are doing fine with hydro and nuclear. We need more nuclear though, which is why Finland is building more now (probably not enough though). The cables I mentioned are examples of under sea cables. One of them is from Sweden to Germany. Such cables can take care of the Mediterranean. Sweden and Norway actually export a lot of hydro south, that hydro is mainly produced in the far north more than 1000 km away, and it is said by those in the industry that the transmission losses are not a bottleneck. You wouldn't have to replace all power in Europe with solar from Sahara of course, to begin with only about 50% of the energy in Europe comes from fossil fuels. Saharan sunlight would just be one of many contributions and every percent that can replace fossil fuel would help.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 01, 2019, 10:27:36 pm
Doing long distance power transmission probably requires more modern solutions. There are various examples of superconductors being used for real world power transmission applications.
That sounds interesting, I wonder what the cost and maximum capacity of a superconducting under sea cable could be! :)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2019, 10:29:58 pm
The problem is that there is no golden rule here. It depends on manufacturer and cell type. This information is only available under an NDA. However Toyota and Tesla have shown that with the right care a Li-ion cell can last very long.
It doesn't surprise me that the cells in their applications are cooled, which supports the notions that temperature is a significant factor in degradation.
It is. Charging temperature for Li-ion is usually between 0 and 30 degrees C. An EV with active temperature control in the battery pack is likely to heat or cool the batteries before charging them.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 01, 2019, 10:59:21 pm
It was my impression that the 2000 C is a "magic" stop if you loose coolant, due to thermal broadening of the neutron spectrum. It would have to be 4000 C to be a danger to the carbide? That is why they are considered passively safe.

"There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe." Sounds like they shut it down due to panic after the Chernobyl accident. The problem doesn't sound like it has to do with the reactor design in general but rather that that specific reactor had under dimensioned feeder tubes.

I don't really understand why people don't like the battery swap solution, wouldn't prevent people from charging at home at the same time. The key social benefit would be that you can charge batteries during peak production. For the individual the benefit is that you can fill up the tank in a few minutes compared to the 20 or so hours you need for a full charge now (which means you solve the range problem). You also spread out the cost of a new battery so that people doesn't have to save up for a large investment in a new battery.
The THTR is/was at  Hamm-Uentrop. After the incident they found damage to the pressure vessel made from reinforced concrete, probably due to excessive temperatures. There were several reasons to shut down the reactor, which was a prototype to show a commercial size pebble bed reactor. One was the damage  to the reactor. Other where high costs (it was not economical - not a surprise for a prototype),  the lack of further fuel supply (they needed special highly enriched Uranium and also the difficulty getting rid of the waste - the reprocessing planed was never started for cost and possible other reasons. So at least 3 good reasons to shut it down, even without an accident in Russia. The higher than expected friction and wear on the fuel was a more general problem with the pebble bed design.

There is some thermal self limiting of the fission reaction somewhere lower maybe 1000 C (it depends on the setting of the rood used for regulation and the fuel used) for the average temperature. However there would be still the decay heat from fission products and new breed fuel to decay. This heat is sufficient to raise the temperature even further even well above 2000 C. AFAIK the 2000 C was the design value for the fuel should withstand, but experience showed problems (e.g. emission of fission products) already earlier. So The safe limit would have to be lower. At somewhere around 3000 C it would expect start of catastrophic damage with softening / melting of the fuel.


For the battery swap solution, one problem is how to charge wear and tear of the battery. There is not that much experience. Another problem is that it would need a kind of standard type of battery used in different cars. This would also add weight and be less flexible in the form factor. One may choose to have something like 1 pack in a small car, 2 in a large one and maybe 4 in a bus - so some flexibility, but still limed. Also once a standard is set this would be set at a time when the technology is still evolving.  Also having enough of the full battery packs at the right station could be a problem. So there could be still the problem of coming to the station and still need to wait for charging.  AFIAK handling the batteries also would need special training for electrical safety. Some 300 V or more DC are not fun, as an arc would stay on and fuses are tricky.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Marco on January 01, 2019, 11:40:56 pm
Pebbles have always seemed like a silly idea to me, they will crack and then you just have an unholy mess for no good reason.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 12:52:06 am
I agree that breaking the pebbles seems messy. They are not supposed to break, of course, and people seem to think there was some design flaw with the HTR-300 that caused the problems. But I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on pebble bed reactors, only reading up on it now.

Still, they seem to like the idea in the US. China is building a 250 MW modular reactor (HTR-PM) after 18 years of running a 10 MW pilot reactor (HTR-10). Apparently they intend to use it to produce cheap hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles. According to Wikipedia in 1992 there was even plans for a HTR-300 successor in Germany, called HTR-500 that would generate 500 MW electricity. So some people still seem to think it's a good idea.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/HTR-PM-steam-generator-passes-pressure-tests (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/HTR-PM-steam-generator-passes-pressure-tests)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kilrah on January 02, 2019, 07:30:45 am
According to research I've seen lithium batteries have a very good shelf-life, but you have to treat them the right way.

Well yes, and that "right way" is exactly NOT the one you'd use it as in that scenario...

For max shelf life you should be storing the battery at about 60% state of charge, the higher the state of charge the faster the degradation. But the whole point of having a 2nd battery you could swap in is precisely to have it fully charged and ready to go, aka where it degrades the fastest.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on January 02, 2019, 07:41:41 am
A fundamental issue with solid fuel fission reactors is that some fission products are gases. These create pressure which swells and cracks the fuel. Eventually it loses structural integrity. I could see this being a big problem with pebbles. The sensible approach is liquid fuel since it eliminates this issue.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 01:32:20 pm
According to research I've seen lithium batteries have a very good shelf-life, but you have to treat them the right way.
Well yes, and that "right way" is exactly NOT the one you'd use it as in that scenario...

For max shelf life you should be storing the battery at about 60% state of charge, the higher the state of charge the faster the degradation. But the whole point of having a 2nd battery you could swap in is precisely to have it fully charged and ready to go, aka where it degrades the fastest.
AFAIK batteries in EVs are never charged to 100%. More likely in the 80% to 90% ballpark to make them last long. This also gives some headroom for regenerative breaking if the trip starts downhill. The same goes for discharging.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 02, 2019, 03:22:11 pm
A fundamental issue with solid fuel fission reactors is that some fission products are gases. These create pressure which swells and cracks the fuel. Eventually it loses structural integrity. I could see this being a big problem with pebbles. The sensible approach is liquid fuel since it eliminates this issue.

Gaseous fission products are problem, however liquid fuel also have problems: one is that not all fission products will stay soluble and this can cause a not well controlled deposition somewhere in the system. The fuel elements are also the first layer of containment for the fission products. Finally solid fuel can be different composition and age at different places in the reactor - this gives a lot of extra freedom in design, that is lost in a liquid system. So there are also quite some downsides to a liquid fuel.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 02, 2019, 03:32:35 pm
Well yes, and that "right way" is exactly NOT the one you'd use it as in that scenario...

For max shelf life you should be storing the battery at about 60% state of charge, the higher the state of charge the faster the degradation. But the whole point of having a 2nd battery you could swap in is precisely to have it fully charged and ready to go, aka where it degrades the fastest.
I'd still be interested in number quantifying this, as it's be good to see whether the impact is big enough to cause considerable wear compared to the successive batteries scenario.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 02, 2019, 03:51:29 pm
AFAIK batteries in EVs are never charged to 100%. More likely in the 80% to 90% ballpark to make them last long. This also gives some headroom for regenerative breaking if the trip starts downhill. The same goes for discharging.
Ion chemistry batteries in general are never fully charged. Whatever counts as fully charged is decided upon by whoever engineers the battery or battery pack. The more energy you stuff in the less life you'll get out of the battery, so there's a trade-off to be made. Cheaper or very portable products tend to charge the battery up to rather high voltages, whereas more long lasting products tend to be more conservative.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 03:57:00 pm
Some newer laptops even have settings in BIOS that lets you configure that now.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 05:38:36 pm
If you just produce solar in Sahara, for example, and export that north to Europe, Europe wouldn't need coal during the day: voilà, coal is reduced by nearly 50%.

Examples of some underwater power cables
Baltic cable: 250 kilometres with a maximum transmission power of 600 megawatts
Basslink: 370 km 500 MW

Sahara to "North of Europe" is 10 times that distance. You'll lose so much as to make the whole point moot. Not to mention that bringing 600MW up there would be negligible.

My country is half the way, small, and from the numbers I can Google needs about 17TW. So your 600MW cable only covers a negligible 3.5%, and it runs 250km instead of the 1500 required.

Covering a minimally significant portion (say 10%?) of that geographical region would need would probably involve carrying 1000TW over an average of 1500km or so...
One solution is to convert the electricity to Hydrogen and then ship it to wherever it needs to go. The transportation infrastructure and storage are definitely cheaper.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tggzzz on January 02, 2019, 05:58:49 pm
Some newer laptops even have settings in BIOS that lets you configure that now.

I have a 2011 Samsung netbook where the bios settings can limit the battery charge to 80%. It is still on its first battery :)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on January 02, 2019, 06:08:09 pm
One solution is to convert the electricity to Hydrogen and then ship it to wherever it needs to go. The transportation infrastructure and storage are definitely cheaper.
I thought the companies at the moment generate hydrogen on the location they sell it because transportation of large volumes is still dangerous or economic infeasible?

Just out of the box brainstorming we need new energy transportation ways. How about sunfloweroil, heat it in the sahara to 140C pump it in isolated pipelines to the different energyplants where they boil water for driving the generators and the retour pipeline return the cooled down oil.
If we ever get a leak it is bio degradable.
Anyway we need new solutions.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 06:21:08 pm
One solution is to convert the electricity to Hydrogen and then ship it to wherever it needs to go. The transportation infrastructure and storage are definitely cheaper.
I thought the companies at the moment generate hydrogen on the location they sell it because transportation of large volumes is still dangerous or economic infeasible?
The first hit on Google says transporting Hydrogen is cheap & easy. I don't see the problem either. Hydrogen is a gas which is compressable into a liquid. The biggest problem is that Hydrogen atoms are very small so they tend to leak away easely.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 02, 2019, 07:20:42 pm
One solution is to convert the electricity to Hydrogen and then ship it to wherever it needs to go. The transportation infrastructure and storage are definitely cheaper.
I thought the companies at the moment generate hydrogen on the location they sell it because transportation of large volumes is still dangerous or economic infeasible?
The first hit on Google says transporting Hydrogen is cheap & easy. I don't see the problem either. Hydrogen is a gas which is compressable into a liquid. The biggest problem is that Hydrogen atoms are very small so they tend to leak away easely.

To liquefy hydrogen it takes low temperatures. The critical point is at some 33 K, so no liquid above that. Cooling hydrogen is possible though not practical for transport, maybe for storage despite of quite some loss. Normal transport as a compressed gas is possible - it's not that different from natural gas in many aspects. There is an additional danger because ignition is easier, but there is also the advantage that leaking hydrogen goes up and burn with little radiation.

The conversion electricity - hydrogen - electricity still has quite some loss. So I don't consider it good just for transport, more like an option for long term (e.g .> 100 days) storage. It's just easier to move the energy use to where the power is.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 07:31:41 pm
It leaks and gets into cracks and even diffuse into other materials which causes embrittlement. It's also burns or in the right air mix explodes quite dramatically. Running cars on hydrogen sounds tricky to me, but maybe it would not be so bad if it's only handled by professionals, transported in proper containers with ships, rail and pipeline to be burnt by turbines at location. Hydrogen in the atmosphere rises until it is eventually blown away from earth by the solar wind.

The conversion electricity - hydrogen - electricity still has quite some loss.
You could always build more solar panels, if they are cheap enough, sunlight is free at least.

It's claimed that it's more efficient to use thermochemical processes to produce hydrogen, so maybe you could use solar towers for that. I'm not sure how well they perform, There is one in Spain iirc.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 07:37:22 pm
Hydrogen is also good to run cars from. In Germany I noticed a lot of Hydrogen filling stations are popping up and lots of investments are going on. In the end it doesn't matter how efficient something is but how expensive. There is a point of optimal cost somewhere. However the most efficient solution is likely not the cheapest.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 08:08:39 pm
There's been a lot of talk about hydrogen EVs using fuel cells.
-----
One study claims it's very inefficient to use hydrogen as an energy carrier, only 25% "well to wheel", i.e. from production to end usage, that seems to imply you can have very large transmission losses in the power grid before hydrogen becomes cheaper.
https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 02, 2019, 08:16:12 pm
It leaks and gets into cracks and even diffuse into other materials which causes embrittlement. It's also burns or in the right air mix explodes quite dramatically. Running cars on hydrogen sounds tricky to me, but maybe it would not be so bad if it's only handled by professionals, transported in proper containers with ships, rail and pipeline to be burnt by turbines at location.

The conversion electricity - hydrogen - electricity still has quite some loss.
You could always build more solar panels, if they are cheap enough, sunlight is free at least.

It's claimed that it's more efficient to use thermochemical processes to produce hydrogen, so maybe you could use solar towers for that. I'm not sure how well they perform, There is one in Spain iirc.

Burning hydrogen is in many respects less critical than burning petrol or natural gas. The flame tends to go up in the air and very little of the energy is coming back from radiation. One could stand just a few feet away from a 100 kW hydrogen flame. With natural gas in contrast the radiation would cause severe burns. The danger with a hydrogen flame is more that one does not see and feel it very well before touching it.

Thermal generation of hydrogen takes high temperatures and this is not that efficient with solar power. So I am not sure it would be so much more efficient.

Especially for storage in something like cars, there is hydrogen storage in hydride form. So a suitable solid dissolves the hydrogen and releases it after moderate temperature heating. It's kind of half a Ni-hydride battery.  It still heavy but could be better than battery.

Currently PV energy is still not that cheap. So efficiency does matter if it comes to storage for more than energy that is really excess and thus currently essentially for free.  For long time storage, like seasonal I would not worry so much about efficiency. But for the short time scale like day to night, the efficiency can be an important factor, as the energy used would not be just excess. It finally is about the price, but efficiency is also part of the price.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 08:32:39 pm
There's been a lot of talk about hydrogen EVs using fuel cells.

One study claims it's very inefficient, only 25% "well to wheel", that seems to imply you can have very large transmission losses in the power grid before using hydrogen becomes cheaper.
https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
That article is nearly 15 years old. Not relevant.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 08:43:54 pm
Why is it no longer relevant, what has changed?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 09:12:33 pm
Why is it no longer relevant, what has changed?
Technology has progressed. A well to wheel efficiency way over 50% should be possible with Hydrogen. But again: efficiency isn't really relevant. Only the costs and (political) feasebility are. A grid between north Africa and Europe may be more efficient but if the Italian or Spanish politics don't want it, then it stops right there. Converting electricity to Hydrogen is much more flexible and thus less risky to invest in.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 09:26:25 pm
Why is it no longer relevant, what has changed?
Technology has progressed. A well to wheel efficiency way over 50% should be possible with Hydrogen. But again: efficiency isn't really relevant. Only the costs and (political) feasebility are. A grid between north Africa and Europe may be more efficient but if the Italian or Spanish politics don't want it, then it stops right there. Converting electricity to Hydrogen is much more flexible and thus less risky to invest in.
Do you have a source showing it can be 50%?

In this case we are talking about moving energy from where it's produced to where it's consumed so any losses means you have to produce that much extra. With hydrogen you have the large losses, but you also have all the extra hassle of producing it, compressing it, storing it and transporting it, and finally converting it back to useful energy. Just using a long wire got to be more cost efficient.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 09:57:07 pm
According to Wikipedia electricity to Hydrogen conversion can be up to 95%. Modern fuel cells are in the 50% to 60% ballpark. When the waste heat it used a fuel cell can reach 85% efficiency.

IMHO you are seriously underestimating the cost of thousands of kilometers of electricity grid.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 02, 2019, 10:32:04 pm
According to Wikipedia electricity to Hydrogen conversion can be up to 95%. Modern fuel cells are in the 50% to 60% ballpark. When the waste heat it used a fuel cell can reach 85% efficiency.

IMHO you are seriously underestimating the cost of thousands of kilometers of electricity grid.
Wikipedia says it's currently 70-80% which is what the study used (75%), it also assumed fuel cell efficiency of 50% which sounds about right to me. On top of that you have compression and transport which uses energy.

You have to compare it to the cost of all of the hydrogen infrastructure. You need factories to produce the hydrogen and compress it and then you need containers to store it in, and finally trucks/boats/trains to transport it physically. You also have to account for some losses. On top of that you have to have people working in those factories, ships, trucks, etc. Compare that to a cable and I bet the cable is cheaper, but I haven't done any calculations.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2019, 10:36:03 pm
I have not read it thouroughly but this document seems to have a nice summary of costs and losses in electricity grids:
https://iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSOK.pdf (https://iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSOK.pdf)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 04, 2019, 11:10:47 pm
Maybe this snipped from an old documentary will convince you. Note the quote by Vassili Nesterenko, a top nuclear physicist who was present at the site. "Our experts studied the possibility and concluded that the explosion would have had a force of 3-5 megatonnes. Minsk, which is 320km from Chernobyl, would have been razed, and Europe rendered uninhabitable." This is seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev. I assume you know who he is and how well informed he would have been.

It really surprises me how many people feel they know better, based on I'm not sure what exactly.

I talked to a nuclear physicist here in Sweden who's an expert on nuclear weapons and who has studied the Chernobyl disaster. He explained that an explosion in the megaton class was completely impossible. The biggest fission bomb humans have designed or detonated was 500 kiloton, to get more you need a fusion bomb and there isn't even the right elements in a nuclear reactor for that. A bomb also need very special configurations in order for it to detonate and it would be impossible for that to happen by chance. That documentary makes no sense what so ever, it's a perfect example of the scaremongering I've been talking about.

A steam-explosion is just what it sounds like, the heat from the molten core might have created more steam, which if confined could cause a pressure buildup and a sudden rupture could then potentially have spread some more debris locally around the reactor. The initial explosion was much more powerful though, possibly powered by a nuclear chain reaction (although not an explosion like in a bomb). The fuel was located in vertical tubes and the roof of the building was made of wood and tar-paper (it was supposed to be concrete). The result was that the initial explosion shot radioactive material high up into the atmosphere like a gigant nuclear cannon. A second explosion caused by built up steam pressure then further destroyed the reactor. If there had been a third steam explosion in the basement it could perhaps have made things a little worse but not by much.

I'll attach a report with an analysis of what risk the molten core poses after the accident. The main danger is that if it comes in contact with too much water the nuclear reaction can restart, increasing the radioactivity and heat output, however it will only last until the water is boiled away again (there is zero risk of a nuclear explosion). That could cause more problems locally so it's undesirable and why they have built a new cover over the accident site.

Interestingly there was a naturally ocuring nuclear reactor in central Africa where this occurred over a period of a few hundred thousand years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor)

As for what politicians think: Hans Blix was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. As such, Blix was the first Western representative to inspect the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union on site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix)

Here is a opinion piece by him from 2007 where he argues for more nuclear power:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fokus.se%2F2007%2F05%2Fhans-blix-karnkraft-ja-tack%2F (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fokus.se%2F2007%2F05%2Fhans-blix-karnkraft-ja-tack%2F)
If any politician was well informed about what was going on at the time it would have been him.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 04, 2019, 11:28:48 pm
I talked to a nuclear physicist here in Sweden who's an expert on nuclear weapons and who has studied the Chernobyl disaster. He explained that an explosion in the megaton class was completely impossible. The biggest fission bomb humans have designed or detonated was 500 kiloton, to get more you need a fusion bomb and there isn't even the right elements in a nuclear reactor for that. A bomb also need very special configurations in order for it to detonate and it would be impossible for that to happen by chance. That documentary makes no sense what so ever, it's a perfect example of the scaremongering I've been talking about.

A steam-explosion is just what it sounds like, the heat from the molten core might have created more steam, which if confined could cause a pressure buildup and a sudden rupture could then potentially have spread some more debris locally around the reactor. The initial explosion was much more powerful though, possibly powered by a nuclear chain reaction (although not an explosion like in a bomb). The fuel was located in vertical tubes and the roof of the building was made of wood and tar-paper (it was supposed to be concrete). The result was that the initial explosion shot radioactive material high up into the atmosphere like a gigant nuclear cannon. A second explosion caused by built up steam pressure then further destroyed the reactor. If there had been a third steam explosion in the basement it could perhaps have made things a little worse but not by much.

I'll attach a report with an analysis of what risk the molten core poses after the accident. The main danger is that if it comes in contact with too much water the nuclear reaction can restart, increasing the radioactivity and heat output, however it will only last until the water is boiled away again (there is zero risk of a nuclear explosion). That could cause more problems locally so it's undesirable and why they have built a new cover over the accident site.

Interestingly there was a naturally ocuring nuclear reactor in central Africa where this occurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor)

As for what politicians think: Hans Blix was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. As such, Blix was the first Western representative to inspect the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union on site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix)

Here is a opinion piece by him from 2007 where he argues for more nuclear power:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fokus.se%2F2007%2F05%2Fhans-blix-karnkraft-ja-tack%2F (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fokus.se%2F2007%2F05%2Fhans-blix-karnkraft-ja-tack%2F)
If any politician was well informed about what was going on at the time it would have been him.
You have to understand that an opinion reportedly relayed from an unnamed and unknown nuclear weapons expert not going on record who doesn't appear to have been on site isn't going to counter a third party video with a internationally renowned expert going on record after having been part of the investigation on site himself. As far as I can tell has Hans Blix never made any statements directly contradicting the secondary steam explosion disaster nearly happening. Maybe it's time to concede you may have overlooked some historical facts. There's really no shame in that.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 04, 2019, 11:51:25 pm
A quick Google turned up there is a yield limit on fission bombs which is well below the 1Mton range. Perhaps it is better to do some fact checking yourself before deciding something isn't true based on... what exactly?

The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed, Ivy King, had a 500 kiloton yield,[2] which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs.[citation needed] Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. (The UK's Orange Herald was a very large boosted fission bomb, with a yield of 750 kilotons.) However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 04, 2019, 11:59:13 pm
A quick Google turned up there is a yield limit on fission bombs which is well below the 1Mton range. Perhaps it is better to do some fact checking yourself before deciding something isn't true based on... what exactly?

The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed, Ivy King, had a 500 kiloton yield,[2] which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs.[citation needed] Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. (The UK's Orange Herald was a very large boosted fission bomb, with a yield of 750 kilotons.) However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield)
Based on the video recorded testimony of a nuclear expert who has been part of the investigation on site. I'm not sure you're entirely aware of the nature of the explosion which was prevented.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/msg2071906/#msg2071906 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/msg2071906/#msg2071906)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 12:14:58 am
Maybe it's time to concede you may have overlooked some historical facts. There's really no shame in that.
Maybe you will one day realise the irony of what you just wrote.

No one is going to write anything official or take the trouble of going on record just to refute what that guy said, because a silly documentary isn't taken serious by professionals. But as ntcnico said, you can Google and see for yourself that what he said can not possibly be true.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 05, 2019, 12:19:18 am
A quick Google turned up there is a yield limit on fission bombs which is well below the 1Mton range. Perhaps it is better to do some fact checking yourself before deciding something isn't true based on... what exactly?

The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed, Ivy King, had a 500 kiloton yield,[2] which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs.[citation needed] Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. (The UK's Orange Herald was a very large boosted fission bomb, with a yield of 750 kilotons.) However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield)
Based on the video recorded testimony of a nuclear expert who has been part of the investigation on site. I'm not sure you're entirely aware of the nature of the explosion which was prevented.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/msg2071906/#msg2071906 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/msg2071906/#msg2071906)
Again some Googling can easely debunk that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon) A nuclear fusion bomb has a very special construction and uses all kind of materials likely not present in the right shape & amount in a molten nuclear reactor. All in all it is very likely there is an error in the translation from Russian to English. 0.2 to 0.3 Megatonnes would be a number within the realm of possibilities given the reaction would be fission only.

Perhaps someone fluent in Russian could listen and transcribe what the expert is saying.

Edit: I hope I'm not flagged for looking up information on nuclear bombs...  :scared:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 12:24:33 am
Maybe you will one day realise the irony of what you just wrote.

No one is going to write anything official or take the trouble of going on record just to refute what that guy said, because a silly documentary isn't taken serious by professionals. But as ntcnico said, you can Google and see for yourself that what he said can not possibly be true.
It literally doesn't get much better than video expert testimony. Flat out denying its relevance isn't going to cut it. Please understand that the explosion prevented was dangerous due to the interaction with the water.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 12:36:41 am
Again some Googling can easely debunk that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon) A nuclear fusion bomb has a very special construction and uses all kind of materials likely not present in the right shape & amount in a molten nuclear reactor. All in all it is very likely there is an error in the translation from Russian to English. 0.2 to 0.3 Megatonnes would be a number within the realm of possibilities given the reaction would be fission only.

Perhaps someone fluent in Russian could listen and transcribe what the expert is saying.

Edit: I hope I'm not flagged for looking up information on nuclear bombs...  :scared:
I've been looking for a rapport which may have been the source of this specific claim, but I haven't been able to dig it up so far. I can't rule out errors in translation, but the described impact of said explosion seems reasonably consistent with the numbers and that entire part being mistranslated seems increasingly unlikely. I can imagine we're not understanding the proposed mechanism through which this explosion would occur. Either way, even a 0.2 to 0.3 megaton explosion would have been a massive disaster. That secondary explosion would have dwarfed what we came to know as the Chernobyl disaster. Despite how bad it already was, we had a lucky escape.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 12:43:02 am
Maybe you will one day realise the irony of what you just wrote.

No one is going to write anything official or take the trouble of going on record just to refute what that guy said, because a silly documentary isn't taken serious by professionals. But as ntcnico said, you can Google and see for yourself that what he said can not possibly be true.
It literally doesn't get much better than video expert testimony. Flat out denying its relevance isn't going to cut it. Please understand that the explosion prevented was dangerous due to the interaction with the water.
If you think it doesn't get better than a heavily edited and translated interview in a TV "documentary" then you have a pretty scary attitude to facts. At most such a clip could serve as inspiration for further investigations. Maybe you should look up what a peer reviewed scientific journal is.

Of course it was about interaction with water, steam is water in the gas-phase, that is why they talk about a steam-explosion. That is very different from a nuclear fusion bomb.

I've been looking for a rapport which may have been the source of this specific claim, but I haven't been able to dig it up so far.
Yet you keep insisting you know better than every one else. Maybe it's time to take your own advice and concede you might have been wrong, there is no shame in that, only in insisting you are right in spite of overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

And no, there was never a possibility of a 0.2 megaton, or xx kiloton, or any form of nuclear explosion according to the nuclear weapons expert I talked to.

Besides, it's just common sense, if it was that easy to create a fusion bomb do you think e.g. North Korea or Iran would have so much trouble trying to build them?

Do you seriously think any politician, e.g. Gorbachev or Blix, would support nuclear power in their country if there was a real risk they would explode in a 3 megaton nuclear explosion? Both Russia and Sweden still has nuclear reactors and Hans Blix at least thinks we should have more. And apparently so does Putin: "The Russian energy strategy of 2003 set a policy priority for reduction in natural gas based power supply, aiming to achieve this through a doubling of nuclear power generation by 2020." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 01:09:47 am
If you think it doesn't get better than a heavily edited and translated interview in a TV "documentary" then you have a pretty scary attitude to facts. At most such a clip could serve as inspiration for further investigations. Maybe you should look up what a peer reviewed scientific journal is.

Of course it was about interaction with water, steam is water in the gas-phase, that is why they talk about a steam-explosion. That is very different from a nuclear fusion bomb.
That's why I've been looking for the rapport which apparently goes along with the statements. This entire discussion is whether Chernobyl was close to becoming a much larger disaster and there isn't anything contradicting this. The story has been coherent from the beginning and claims it's some kind of manufactured story don't seem viable. I really don't understand why such a big deal is made out of it either. It's not as if the entire story of nuclear power having the potential of becoming large scale disasters hinges on it. It's good to be aware of as it gives a better perspective of what we're dealing with, but it's hardly worth going to war over.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 05, 2019, 01:18:59 am
But people have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants which are constructed nowadays are build with the 'lessons learned' from dissasters and near-dissasters in the past. This doesn't guarantee nothing will ever go wrong again but the risk is extremely low.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 01:28:23 am
I really don't understand why such a big deal is made out of it either.
Because it is a lie. It is important that we base our decisions on facts or else we will make incorrect and even harmful decisions (like many have already by choosing coal instead of nuclear). If nuclear power reactors could blow up like nuclear bombs then no one in their right mind would use them or work in them or live near them. What happened at Chernobyl is pretty much the worst that could happen.

Now that we have a lot of research showing what the consequences was and it turns out nuclear power is far less harmful to peoples health and the environment than e.g. coal power or even hydro power. So the anti-nuclear activists are now pretending "oh, but but it could have been much worse". That is just dishonest and downright dangerous.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 01:37:07 am
But people have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants which are constructed nowadays are build with the 'lessons learned' from dissasters and near-dissasters in the past. This doesn't guarantee nothing will ever go wrong again but the risk is extremely low.
Are there any charts which show the age and design type of various reactors around the world?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 02:36:27 am
Because it is a lie. It is important that we base our decisions on facts or else we will make incorrect and even harmful decisions (like many have already by choosing coal instead of nuclear). If nuclear power reactors could blow up like nuclear bombs then no one in their right mind would use them or work in them or live near them. What happened at Chernobyl is pretty much the worst that could happen.
You can't will it to be untrue because it doesn't suit your narrative. We could argue all day long what the actual scale of the secondary explosion would have been, but even very conservative estimates mean the plant would have sustained massive damage and huge amounts of radioactive materials would have been ejected into the world. That still fits the original statement that Chernobyl has been a disaster prevented. There's a reason modern Russian plants are built with floors designed to prevent exactly this from happening. They do this because it almost did happen.

Again, I don't understand why you make such a big deal even out of something so irrelevant to your argument. It hurts your credibility if you flat out refuse to concede anything which isn't favourable for your position, especially in the face of the evidence presented. No amount of evidence is going to change anything as it'd just lead to mental gymnastics and more denial, so yet again I'm going to end the discussion here.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 05, 2019, 12:05:18 pm
I really don't understand why such a big deal is made out of it either.
Because it is a lie. It is important that we base our decisions on facts or else we will make incorrect and even harmful decisions (like many have already by choosing coal instead of nuclear).
I wouldn't call it an outright lie because if the molten Uranium would have reached the water a chain reaction with unknown proportions could have taken place. I'm not sure if that would result in a really big explosion in the hundreds of kiloton range. First of all the amount of material wouldn't be very big because it would have leaked like lava through the floor, secondly the material would be very contaminated with whatever is dissolved in it (steel, concrete, whatever) and thirdly the water would be boiled and/or blown away. Maybe the explosion would be in the several kiloton range. Still enough to likely spread a lof of radioactive material over the surrounding area and make cleaning up the mess more difficult than it is. Also the neighbouring reactors could be affected leading to multiple reactors with a melt-down. All in all it seems to me that preventing an explosion below the reactor was extremely important but not because it could result in a massive atomic blast. The damage of even a small explosion could be tremendous.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 05, 2019, 02:06:24 pm
The fuel in most reactor is considered not suitable to create a nuclear explosion, without an extraordinary effort. This criterion is used by the IAEO if material to be safe to be handled by non weapons states.
So it is essentially impossible that this would happen by accident. If there is an obscure TV report claiming such things - the logical thing it to have a good laugh  :-DD  and ignore those "experts", not matter why they claim they are experts. Jut put them in the same box as those claiming martians are coming next week.

When the initial explosion happened  the fuel elements where still essentially intact. So while it was a significant explosion, that could have also damaged a heavy concrete roof, there was not that much radioactivity coming out. The isotopes found in much of Europe also showed that this where mainly the rather mobile elements, essentially no uranium or plutonium.

With the molten fuel reaching water, there was a danger (not sure for it to happen)  to get another smaller steam-explosion, but now with heavily damaged fuel and thus possibly more radioactive material (especially also the heavy metals). Even if the nuclear reaction would restart, this would be slow and usually limited by the water boiling off, or super hot fuel pushed away. The nice thing about a water moderated reactor is that formation of steam kind of stabilizes the reaction.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 05, 2019, 02:16:48 pm
The radioactive materials found in Japan after Fukushima are proving to be problematic, because randomly distributed in the dust there is a small but highly radioactive component of particles that emit gamma radiation and stay radioactive for a very long time.


Press Release: Radioactively-Hot Particles in Japan — Nuclear Energy Education

https://www.fairewinds.org/newsletter-archive//press-release-radioactively-hot-particles-in-japan (https://www.fairewinds.org/newsletter-archive//press-release-radioactively-hot-particles-in-japan)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on January 05, 2019, 03:44:11 pm
An enriched natural uranium (mostly U238 with a  few percent of U235) reactor cannot undergo a fission explosion of any size, and that is because U238's capture cross-section for fast neutrons is too large.  Fast neutrons typically get captured by U238 atoms before they reach the few U235 atoms present. The U238 atoms are transmuted (Mostly to PU239) but do not release a cascade of fast neutrons, so the process is not self-sustaining. 

A sustained reaction can only take place if there is a moderator present such as graphite or water. This slows the neutrons into the 'thermal' kinetic energy range. The slow neutrons don't greatly interact with U238, and hence continue until they reach a U235 atom. Where they cause fission, releasing 3 more fast neutrons. And, so on.

Remove the U238 and the moderator is no longer needed. Then, a fission explosion is possible. It still requires fast assembly though, otherwise the heat produced as the material becomes 'critical' and intensely radioactive will just result in a meltdown and disintegration.

The main explosion risk in commercial reactors, and the likely cause of the explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima, is zirconium fuel pin cladding burning in steam or water, which releases hydrogen. Zirconium is chosen for its low neutron absorbtion combined with good physical strength. It is a metal, similar to magnesium. Like magnesium it is inflammable, but quite hard to ingite. Once ignited though, it burns furiously and is hard to extinguish. If the burning metal comes into contact with water it robs the oxygen, leaving hydrogen gas. Hydrogen is explosive over a very wide range of mixtures with air. It takes only a tiny spark to ignite a hydrogen/air mixture, and if in a strong confined vessel such as a containment building, the resulting explosion is powerful. In this case the strong building works against itself, leading to an even bigger bang.

The world's nuclear industry urgently needs to move away from designs using zirconium fuel cladding. This is by far the greatest safety risk in existing reactors. It turns a meltdown and local, manageable, contamination into a disaster area with pollution spread for miles around.   :palm:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 04:00:44 pm
The fuel in most reactor is considered not suitable to create a nuclear explosion, without an extraordinary effort. This criterion is used by the IAEO if material to be safe to be handled by non weapons states.
So it is essentially impossible that this would happen by accident. If there is an obscure TV report claiming such things - the logical thing it to have a good laugh  :-DD  and ignore those "experts", not matter why they claim they are experts. Jut put them in the same box as those claiming martians are coming next week.

When the initial explosion happened  the fuel elements where still essentially intact. So while it was a significant explosion, that could have also damaged a heavy concrete roof, there was not that much radioactivity coming out. The isotopes found in much of Europe also showed that this where mainly the rather mobile elements, essentially no uranium or plutonium.

With the molten fuel reaching water, there was a danger (not sure for it to happen)  to get another smaller steam-explosion, but now with heavily damaged fuel and thus possibly more radioactive material (especially also the heavy metals). Even if the nuclear reaction would restart, this would be slow and usually limited by the water boiling off, or super hot fuel pushed away. The nice thing about a water moderated reactor is that formation of steam kind of stabilizes the reaction.
The man interviewed was one of the lead experts on site at the time of the disaster. Note that that documentary isn't the only source of the story either. It's been well documented and supported by other surrounding facts. This just happens to be a recording of the actual expert saying it himself.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 04:01:31 pm
The biggest nuclear explosion that North Korea has been able to create after several decades is estimated to be 10 kiloton. To say you can create a 2-3 megaton explosion (or kiloton for that matter) by simply dropping some fuel-waste mixed with concrete into water is just plain ridiculous. :-DD

At most there could have been a steam buildup in the basement which could possibly have spread more heavily contaminated material around the accident site. But it would not have affected areas far away from Chernobyl. I would guess it might have made the exclusion zone a little more contaminated and made the cleanup around the reactor building more difficult. It was also quite possibly a direct threat to the personnel working at the site after the accident. So of course it would have been important to prevent that from happening. But it wouldn't have made the overall outcome much worse.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 04:05:35 pm
The biggest nuclear explosion that North Korea has been able to create after several decades is estimated to be 10 kiloton. To say you can create a 2-3 megaton explosion (or kiloton for that matter) by simply dropping some fuel-waste mixed with concrete into water is just plain ridiculous. :-DD

At most there could have been a steam buildup in the basement which could possibly have spread more heavily contaminated material around the accident site. But it would not have affected areas far away from Chernobyl. I would guess it might have made the exclusion zone a little more contaminated and made the cleanup around the reactor building more difficult. It was also quite possibly a direct threat to the personnel working at the site after the accident. So of course it would have been important to prevent that from happening. But it wouldn't have made the overall outcome much worse.
Expert > apis. The point is and has been all along that Chernobyl could have easily been a worse disaster and that's what you finally admit in this post. Not wholeheartedly, but it'll have to do. Now can be please be done with this senseless discussion over what's essentially a footnote? It doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has the potential to cause massive disasters one way or another.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 05, 2019, 04:17:22 pm
It seems to me to potentially be even more destructive over time if the explosion is non-nuclear but releases large amounts of gamma-ray emitting highly radioactive particles with very long half lifes. Which is what happened in several nuclear accidents although the thread here seems to not be engaging on that.

The media hasn't covered this but there are a large number of these particles in Japan, where a lot of people now have their own personal radiation detecting equipment. There is this usual black gunk alongside roads everywhere in the world which -now in Japan, it turns out has often been acting as a sponge it seems for these gamma-ray emitting particles that clearly originated in Fukushima. They are clearly from a non-natural source. They're very dangerous, even if they are very small because they can and do initiate cancers. If they exist as part of the soil in an area, thats potentially a health problem for a long time unless its laboriously removed. Kind of like in "A Handmaid's Tale".

(Some parts of Japan have fairly high natural radioactivity levels, but thats not what I am talking about here)

Also apis, I think you're significantly understating the yields of nuclear tests in the DPRK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea). Nuclear terrorism is a serious risk, and proliferation risk is worsened by increases in the use of nuclear power.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 05, 2019, 04:23:08 pm
Now can be please be done with this senseless discussion over what's essentially a footnote? It doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has the potential to cause massive disasters one way or another.
But you'd have to agree that using fossile fuels have also caused massive dissasters. Think about acid rain and smog.

In 1954 over 10000 people died and 100000 got sick due to smog in London:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London)
To kill and injure a similar amount of people in one go you'd need a small atomic bomb. There probably isn't any other single weapon which can cause this much damage to a population of a city.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 04:35:13 pm
But you'd have to agree that using fossile fuels have also caused massive dissasters. Think about acid rain and smog.

In 1954 over 10000 people died and 100000 got sick due to smog in London:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London)
To kill and injure a similar amount of people in one go you'd need a small atomic bomb. There probably isn't any other single weapon which can cause this much damage to a population of a city.
I'm not disagreeing with the dangers of fossil fuels. I don't think I ever have.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 05, 2019, 04:55:34 pm
The combined impact of air pollution from coal, diesel exhaust, natural gas / methane and emissions of elemental mercury associated with coal on health are astronomical and they impact the weakest among us as well as the strong. Mercury also seems to be building up in many areas in ways we haven't seen before. They all threaten a great many peoples lives and health, as well as human reproduction, and there is no denying it.

But nuclear fission is NOT the 'solution' to that some are portraying it as. It's another can of worms filled with its own potentially world altering problems.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 05, 2019, 05:48:53 pm
The fuel in most reactor is considered not suitable to create a nuclear explosion, without an extraordinary effort. This criterion is used by the IAEO if material to be safe to be handled by non weapons states.
So it is essentially impossible that this would happen by accident. If there is an obscure TV report claiming such things - the logical thing it to have a good laugh  :-DD  and ignore those "experts", not matter why they claim they are experts. Jut put them in the same box as those claiming martians are coming next week.

When the initial explosion happened  the fuel elements where still essentially intact. So while it was a significant explosion, that could have also damaged a heavy concrete roof, there was not that much radioactivity coming out. The isotopes found in much of Europe also showed that this where mainly the rather mobile elements, essentially no uranium or plutonium.

With the molten fuel reaching water, there was a danger (not sure for it to happen)  to get another smaller steam-explosion, but now with heavily damaged fuel and thus possibly more radioactive material (especially also the heavy metals). Even if the nuclear reaction would restart, this would be slow and usually limited by the water boiling off, or super hot fuel pushed away. The nice thing about a water moderated reactor is that formation of steam kind of stabilizes the reaction.
The man interviewed was one of the lead experts on site at the time of the disaster. Note that that documentary isn't the only source of the story either. It's been well documented and supported by other surrounding facts. This just happens to be a recording of the actual expert saying it himself.

The man only claimed to be an expert. However for what he is quoted later is big nonsense - so looks like the reporters are experts for fake news.  Common sense and general knowledge (e.g. about what one might learn in school) clearly says it does not make sense what is claimed in the report.  There are so called experts on UFOs too.  :horse:
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 05:59:11 pm
The man only claimed to be an expert. However for what he is quoted later is big nonsense - so looks like the reporters are experts for fake news.  Common sense and general knowledge (e.g. about what one might learn in school) clearly says it does not make sense what is claimed in the report.  There are so called experts on UFOs too.  :horse:
Please, spinning this into fake news or UFO expert territory is silly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassili_Nesterenko
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 07:07:46 pm
The biggest nuclear explosion that North Korea has been able to create after several decades is estimated to be 10 kiloton. To say you can create a 2-3 megaton explosion (or kiloton for that matter) by simply dropping some fuel-waste mixed with concrete into water is just plain ridiculous. :-DD

At most there could have been a steam buildup in the basement which could possibly have spread more heavily contaminated material around the accident site. But it would not have affected areas far away from Chernobyl. I would guess it might have made the exclusion zone a little more contaminated and made the cleanup around the reactor building more difficult. It was also quite possibly a direct threat to the personnel working at the site after the accident. So of course it would have been important to prevent that from happening. But it wouldn't have made the overall outcome much worse.
Expert > apis. The point is and has been all along that Chernobyl could have easily been a worse disaster and that's what you finally admit in this post. Not wholeheartedly, but it'll have to do. Now can be please be done with this senseless discussion over what's essentially a footnote? It doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has the potential to cause massive disasters one way or another.
To falsely claim that Chearnobyl nearly rendered Europe uninhabitable is not a footnote, it is an outrageous lie and perfect example of the kind of scaremongering the anti nuclear activists engage in.

It's not only my own conclusion. As I said, I even asked a professional published nuclear scientists who is an expert on nuclear weapons and has studied the Chernobyl disaster professionally. There was absolutely no risk of any nuclear explosion according to this expert. I even attached a scientific report that describes the dangers that the melted fuel from Chernobyl poses that you conveniently ignore, it does not mention any explosion risk.

I've said all along it might have been a little bit worse, but not so much that it would significantly affect the the end result.

Nuclear can potentially cause big disasters but so can hydro and coal (and for coal it is not potential, it is guaranteed). The point I have made from the beginning is that nuclear power poses less risk to human health (and the environment) than coal power does (and even hydro). That is easy to verify even by non-experts because the relevant numbers are publicly available today. You only have to make the final synthesis yourself; make a rough calculation of deaths per watt produced for different power sources. Coal power is not "just as bad", or "slightly worse", it is worse by many orders of magnitude.

The man only claimed to be an expert. However for what he is quoted later is big nonsense - so looks like the reporters are experts for fake news.  Common sense and general knowledge (e.g. about what one might learn in school) clearly says it does not make sense what is claimed in the report.  There are so called experts on UFOs too.  :horse:
Please, spinning this into fake news or UFO expert territory is silly.
Fake news is what it is. And we don't even know if that comment was translated incorrectly, or if it was taken out of context, or something else. But either way it is obviously BS.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 07:14:46 pm
The combined impact of air pollution from coal, diesel exhaust, natural gas / methane and emissions of elemental mercury associated with coal on health are astronomical and they impact the weakest among us as well as the strong. Mercury also seems to be building up in many areas in ways we haven't seen before. They all threaten a great many peoples lives and health, as well as human reproduction, and there is no denying it.

But nuclear fission is NOT the 'solution' to that some are portraying it as. It's another can of worms filled with its own potentially world altering problems.
Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 05, 2019, 07:18:54 pm
With a  video from a dubious source like youtube one has to be careful - there is quite a lot of click-bait. I would not not consider this video more serious as an article in News of the World or similar papers where you don't expect anything serious. I looked at the video and now very much doubt the translation - much of the scary part is from the narrator anyway, not the expert.

From what I vaguely remember they  feared the extra emissions if the molten core get contact to water - maybe comparable to the fallout of an explosion in the megatons range, though itself only with moderate explosions (more like kg equivalent). A reporter looking for a spectacular headline might get the details wrong in the translation. 

For the Chernobyl disaster itself, thus main cause was a combination of design faults and human error / violation of instructions.  It started with a test to verify the safety systems on the relatively new reactor. The test way delayed by expected urgent need for electricity and than run by an unexperienced crew that should have never done this test. The reactor was also in an unsafe state due to the way it was run at partial load the days before, with lots of xenon poisoning.  Following normally procedures it should have not run at all under these conditions, because it is known to cause instabilities. Only because the fuel was new, they could barely start it by pulling the control rods all the way out - something usually also not allowed.  As an at the time unknown design fault the controls don't work right, when all the way out and initially even accelerated instead of stopping the reaction. This critical combination lead to the power in the reactor to quite fast (within seconds) to rise very high - though only low power operation was expected. This lead to cooling water boiling and due to known design weakness (positive void coefficient) lead to even more power, like 100-1000 times the nominal power. The overheated reactor than blew apart from too much steam pressure and damaged the roof.  After that the exposed hot graphite moderator started burning, which helped to emit even more radioactive particles with the hot fumes over the next days. Much of the radioactivity was still trapped in the melting fuel.

Having relatively new fuel meant that there was quite a lot less radioactivity than normal in an older reactor. So while the accident was bad with the burning graphite, many reactors have a higher radioactive inventory. An older reactor of this type blowing up for what ever reason could have emitted something like 5 times the radioactivity.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 07:26:13 pm
To falsely claim that Chearnobyl nearly rendered Europe uninhabitable is not a footnote, it is an outrageous lie and perfect example of the kind of scaremongering the anti nuclear activists engage in.

It's not only my own conclusion. As I said, I even asked a professional published nuclear scientists who is an expert on nuclear weapons and has studied the Chernobyl disaster professionally. There was absolutely no risk of any nuclear explosion according to this expert. I even attached a scientific report that describes the dangers that the melted fuel from Chernobyl poses that you conveniently ignore, it does not mention any explosion risk.

I've said all along it might have been a little bit worse, but not so much that it would significantly affect the the end result.

Nuclear can potentially cause big disasters but so can hydro and coal (and for coal it is not potential, it is guaranteed). The point I have made from the beginning is that nuclear power poses less risk to human health (and the environment) than coal power does (and even hydro). That is easy to verify even by non-experts because the relevant numbers are publicly available today. You only have to make the final synthesis yourself; make a rough calculation of deaths per watt produced for different power sources. Coal power is not "just as bad", or "slightly worse", it is worse by many orders of magnitude.

Fake news is what it is. And we don't even know if that comment was translated incorrectly, or if it was taken out of context, or something else. But either way it is obviously BS.
It is a footnote in the context of this thread. It's a minor point in a much larger coherent picture. No matter how much information you're given that nuclear power isn't as benign as you suggest, you always manage to do some mental gymnastics to wave it away. That's not how it works. You can't wish a body of evidence and expert testimony away because it doesn't suit your story and it seriously impacts your credibility if you can't acknowledge any of it. A convincing argument is comprised of acknowledging counter arguments and addressing them, not flat out denying them. Calling fake news is the last resort for charlatans. I'm not against nuclear power as such, but if we're not going into it taking it very seriously it's bound to just end in another disaster. This past discussion has shown we're nowhere near mature enough to handle the dangers of nuclear fire responsibly. Waving away dangers means it inevitably blowing up in our face.

Coal power is bad too, yes. I never argued otherwise.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 07:29:54 pm
Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.
That's a fallacy. You don't have to provide a way to cross a river if the rickety bridge already there is obviously going to kill us.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 07:33:13 pm
Having relatively new fuel meant that there was quite a lot less radioactivity than normal in an older reactor. So while the accident was bad with the burning graphite, many reactors have a higher radioactive inventory. An older reactor of this type blowing up for what ever reason could have emitted something like 5 times the radioactivity.
Thankfully, no one is building that kind of reactor anymore. But even if it had been 5 times worse because of old fuel, the conclusion is the same, air pollution kills more people every year.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 07:35:48 pm
Thankfully, no one is building that kind of reactor anymore. But even if it had been 5 times worse because of old fuel, the conclusion is the same, air pollution kills more people every year.
Sources would be good from now on.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 07:45:31 pm
With a  video from a dubious source like youtube one has to be careful - there is quite a lot of click-bait. I would not not consider this video more serious as an article in News of the World or similar papers where you don't expect anything serious. I looked at the video and now very much doubt the translation - much of the scary part is from the narrator anyway, not the expert.

From what I vaguely remember they  feared the extra emissions if the molten core get contact to water - maybe comparable to the fallout of an explosion in the megatons range, though itself only with moderate explosions (more like kg equivalent). A reporter looking for a spectacular headline might get the details wrong in the translation. 

For the Chernobyl disaster itself, thus main cause was a combination of design faults and human error / violation of instructions.  It started with a test to verify the safety systems on the relatively new reactor. The test way delayed by expected urgent need for electricity and than run by an unexperienced crew that should have never done this test. The reactor was also in an unsafe state due to the way it was run at partial load the days before, with lots of xenon poisoning.  Following normally procedures it should have not run at all under these conditions, because it is known to cause instabilities. Only because the fuel was new, they could barely start it by pulling the control rods all the way out - something usually also not allowed.  As an at the time unknown design fault the controls don't work right, when all the way out and initially even accelerated instead of stopping the reaction. This critical combination lead to the power in the reactor to quite fast (within seconds) to rise very high - though only low power operation was expected. This lead to cooling water boiling and due to known design weakness (positive void coefficient) lead to even more power, like 100-1000 times the nominal power. The overheated reactor than blew apart from too much steam pressure and damaged the roof.  After that the exposed hot graphite moderator started burning, which helped to emit even more radioactive particles with the hot fumes over the next days. Much of the radioactivity was still trapped in the melting fuel.

Having relatively new fuel meant that there was quite a lot less radioactivity than normal in an older reactor. So while the accident was bad with the burning graphite, many reactors have a higher radioactive inventory. An older reactor of this type blowing up for what ever reason could have emitted something like 5 times the radioactivity.
It's not a "Youtube video", it's a documentary uploaded to Youtube. The important parts aren't from the narrator, unless you're talking about the voice over translation. Claiming that the whole thing is entirely but internally coherently mistranslated rather than a single number or unit being mistranslated seems mostly grasping at straws. Trying to call everything into question isn't very effective when the separate pieces are internally coherent.

It's probably interesting to note that this documentary is one of the few sources getting the survival of the men that went into the basement right. Most western sources report they perished soon after, but this documentary doesn't.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 05, 2019, 08:10:33 pm
It is very difficult to judge the dangers of nuclear energy. Some of the dangers are in the far future and thus not easy to know, as we obviously don't have experience with 1000 year old nuclear fuel. The accident probabilities are also open to controversial discussions. It also gets more tricky if breeding reactors are needed, as the supply of uranium is to low for large scale once through nuclear.

Anyway nuclear energy has other reasons why it can't replace coal as a main energy source:
For all we know so far nuclear energy turned out rather expensive and promises of low cost just did not turn out good. Even pro-nuclear calculations put the cost higher than for PV or wind at a reasonable location. Much of the costs are up-front and thus need capital willing to invest in a technology that is likely not economic.

The 2nd issue is that it would take too long to build a large number of reactors - maybe not as long as with fusion, but still more like 50 years. There are just not the facilities to build the classical reactor types in significant numbers and new designs take a long certification and development process.

There is also the political problem that the neighbors also take part of the risk and if in doubt may also have to pay for the disposal if the money hold back was not enough or got lost, e.g. to corrupt politicians or economic trouble. I don't think the US would be happy with Cuba tuning towards nuclear energy. Much of the cover-up  :-DD at Chernobyl is currently paid from western Europe and not Russia or the Ukraine.
I won't expect failing states have a good eye on the money laid back to properly dispose the waste or just keep up safety at the intended levels.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 08:19:47 pm
It is very difficult to judge the dangers of nuclear energy. Some of the dangers are in the far future and thus not easy to know, as we obviously don't have experience with 1000 year old nuclear fuel. The accident probabilities are also open to controversial discussions. It also gets more tricky if breeding reactors are needed, as the supply of uranium is to low for large scale once through nuclear.

Anyway nuclear energy has other reasons why it can't replace coal as a main energy source:
For all we know so far nuclear energy turned out rather expensive and promises of low cost just did not turn out good. Even pro-nuclear calculations put the cost higher than for PV or wind at a reasonable location. Much of the costs are up-front and thus need capital willing to invest in a technology that is likely not economic.

The 2nd issue is that it would take too long to build a large number of reactors - maybe not as long as with fusion, but still more like 50 years. There are just not the facilities to build the classical reactor types in significant numbers and new designs take a long certification and development process.

There is also the political problem that the neighbors also take part of the risk and if in doubt may also have to pay for the disposal if the money hold back was not enough or got lost, e.g. to corrupt politicians or economic trouble. I don't think the US would be happy with Cuba tuning towards nuclear energy. Much of the cover-up  :-DD at Chernobyl is currently paid from western Europe and not Russia or the Ukraine.
I won't expect failing states have a good eye on the money laid back to properly dispose the waste or just keep up safety at the intended levels.
That's one of my worries too. With appropriate care and respect for the dangers you may be able to handle nuclear power now, but nuclear power is a long term commitment. Just consider the huge political shifts and changes we've seen in the world the past century and it doesn't instil much confidence we'd be able to keep a lid on things for even just 500 years. Relatively recently we've seen many nuclear materials being abandoned in the former USSR.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-race-for-abandoned-nuclear-material.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-race-for-abandoned-nuclear-material.html)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Nauris on January 05, 2019, 09:12:30 pm
On the issue of  RBMK reactors it should be noted that they received numerous safety patches after the Chernobyl accident, have been operated ever since without blowing up and they are considered safe enough that they received 15 year lifetime extension beyond original design lifetime, meaning RBMK reactors will be in commercial operation into 2030.

Also on the cost issue, althought new reactors are too expensive, they also have very long design lifetime of minimum of 60 years typically, which also likely can be extended even longer. I would not be too suprised if the reactors build today are still in operation after 100 years.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 09:17:20 pm
On the issue of  RBMK reactors it should be noted that they received numerous safety patches after the Chernobyl accident, have been operated ever since without blowing up and they are considered safe enough that they received 15 year lifetime extension beyond original design lifetime, meaning RBMK reactors will be in commercial operation into 2030.

Also on the cost issue, althought new reactors are too expensive, they also have very long design lifetime of minimum of 60 years typically, which also likely can be extended even longer. I would not be too suprised if the reactors build today are still in operation after 100 years.
I'd be more inclined to argue the life extensions are a safety issue where money and political interest trump over engineering and design life, rather than proof of how safe things are. As you say investing in new reactors is a massive undertaking, so there's a huge incentive to push the current investment a little further. While retrofitting exists, it's a bit of an issue the life cycle of these reactors are that long. It hampers the acceptance of safety features and new insights.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 09:33:10 pm
Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.
That's a fallacy. You don't have to provide a way to cross a river if the rickety bridge already there is obviously going to kill us.
No it is not. To use your analogy: we have to cross the river some way, even staying at this side of the river is dangerous and there is no safe way of crossing the river. So the question is how we can minimise the damage/risk. All roads are dangerous, life is dangerous.

We know the alternatives to nuclear are also dangerous. Hydro power also causes disasters and have killed more people per watt produced than nuclear has. Hydroelectric power stations damage the ecology of the rivers and waters it is connected to. (Conversely, Chernobyl inadvertently created a flourishing wildlife sanctuary.) So if you say we should use hydro instead of nuclear you are actually making things worse. I'm sure you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell.

Thankfully, no one is building that kind of reactor anymore. But even if it had been 5 times worse because of old fuel, the conclusion is the same, air pollution kills more people every year.
Sources would be good from now on.
Unlike you I have already provided a ton of sources, I can't help you are ignoring them. These numbers should be well know if you have done any kind of research on this. How about you begin provide your own sources instead (credible scientific ones, not activist youtube clips).

For your convenience I'll post some references one more time (despite that it is easy to google yourself and already been posted).

Here's a study from Sweden about the impact of air-pollution: http://naturvardsverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1242584/FULLTEXT01.pdf (http://naturvardsverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1242584/FULLTEXT01.pdf)

"The total number of excess deaths due to air pollution exposure was estimated up to 7600 in 2015." The population of Sweden in 2015 was less than 9.75 million, that means 0.08% die from air pollution every year. Compare that to the estimate of 30'000 total deaths from Chernobyl (globally and for all time) and you should realise that particles from nuclear power plants is a far less problem than particles from fossil fuel burning. For example: the EU had 2015 a population of 508 million, if we extrapolate from the Swedish study we get that about 400'000 die every year in EU because of air pollution. In one year more than 10 times as many people die because of air pollution (in the EU) than died because of the Chernobyl accident! Fossil fuel burning generate about 7 times as much energy in EU as nuclear does, but even if we take that into account we could have one Chernobyl disaster every year and it would still be less harmfull than the air pollution. And that is only looking at the EU, do the same math globally and it becomes even more obvious. There have only been two big civilian nuclear disasters since the first reactors in the 1940s. The track record for nuclear is even better than hydro-electric, the worst hydro dam accident killed over 170'000! You should also take into account that the safety of nuclear reactors have improved greatly since the 1960s, so we can expect future nuclear to be even safer.

Banqiao dam failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)

It is easier to find information about Chernobyl than coal power strangely. 30'000 is from the torch report (27'000 to be precise), se for example:
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated? (https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated?)

It might be worth noting that WHO, IAEA etc usually estimate this number to be much lower, here they write 9'000 for example:
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr20/en/ (https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr20/en/)

But it doesn't really matter which number you pick, since either way it's far less than those who die from air pollution every year.

More general information about Chernobyl:
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm (https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm)
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Conclusions (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Conclusions)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 05, 2019, 09:58:35 pm
One of the biggest problems we're going to face in the coming years is what I would describe as churning or disaster capitalism. Another is ISDS and its progeny. They are symptoms of a rapid decline in power held by working people and voters, due to a moving of decision making power out of the hands of national leaders (the people who are voted in and out of office) and into the hands of totally unaccountable and unelected "global governance institutions" whose administration and membership is controlled by a few large and powerful countries that all have a huge democracy deficit due to their having been taken over by huge multinational corporations. In whats described as the "trilemma" of globalization, democracy as people expect it has been basically ended except in name only, in whats claimed changes made to ensure the stability of the global financial system and investors.

See How to understand policy trilemmas | World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/how-to-understand-policy-trilemmas/ (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/how-to-understand-policy-trilemmas/)

But, we never got the memo. So we're unlikely to be able to figure out whats happening with any accuracy until its too late. There is a reason these people are so rich and we're so poor and its that they spend a lot of time on this, even obsess about it,  and for us, its just part of our full lives.

We're out of our league.

We'd be wise to stick to the most boring and safe everything because we live in what is increasingly a captured planet. Any excuse some people we've often mistakenly entrusted with power have to exploit anything they can characterize as an 'emergency' they will grab. They are not like normal people, they have no moral compass. Few people in our normal world are like that but large percentages of people in power are. Wealth in many people is an obsession or addiction. They literally would rather be dead than poor and subject to the same rules as others. They manipulate the system. They see themselves as above the law. And when they screw up, they screw up really really badly and WE ALL PAY THE PRICE, not them. That's guaranteed. They are laughing at us.

Do you understand what I am getting at? the world is going through a dangerous time. We still have trust, a legacy of gentler times. That trust is no longer appropriate.

A big problem we're facing most people don't even know is there. A relentless pressure on countries to sign irreversible or nearly irreversible trade and investment agreements that take policy out of the hands of voters and lock in decisions, even bad decisions, requiring insane amounts of punitive dmages if a country needs to escape them. It can take decades and huge payments from taxpayer funds of alleged 'lost expected profits"

People need to spend some quality time in research to understand whats being done. I'm reluctant to post URLS because frankly the issue is really quite technical and since it seems many people are desperate to have it not be discussed its best to give more general information. ISDS means "investor vs. state dispute settlement" Another term used by some to describe the clauses in these agreements is "trojan horse clauses" another is "indirect expropriation". They make facts like what is safe for a country irrelevant because they frame disputes in simple terms a dispute might hinge on what a company claim they expect but the system is really rigged in the worst way.

Imagine being in a court where you could only be sued by, not sue companies and the only questions the court were allowed to decide were highly technical ones like "did you agree to not change any law or regulation after this date"? Period.

The combined impact of air pollution from coal, diesel exhaust, natural gas / methane and emissions of elemental mercury associated with coal on health are astronomical and they impact the weakest among us as well as the strong. Mercury also seems to be building up in many areas in ways we haven't seen before. They all threaten a great many peoples lives and health, as well as human reproduction, and there is no denying it.

But nuclear fission is NOT the 'solution' to that some are portraying it as. It's another can of worms filled with its own potentially world altering problems.
Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.

Maybe you understand me, maybe you don't. I'm just saying we have to go very carefully because the system is so very rigged against the interests of normal people now, and getting more so every day. We no longer have democracy. Any change of any kind will be exploited in ways we are unlikely to understand until years down the line we realize we walked right into a trap.

The smartest thing we could all do is cut our energy usage to the bone rather than make new commitments that cant be reversed. Every possible excuse will be used to steal from the taxpayers of the world. Thats the one thing the oligarchs agree on. They are a clubby little bunch and they are united against us.

Look up the huge number of ISDS cases that have been brought against taxpayers around the world involving energy.

For example, under the Energy Charter Treaty.

If you don't know what ISDS is, maybe you should do some research and learn what I'm trying to explain to you and us. It changes everything.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 10:00:54 pm
As we've discussed before, comparing numbers isn't going to fly. Various sources show the Soviet regime has downplayed the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, which means that comparing nuclear to hydroelectricity isn't so easily done. The same has been happening in the Fukushima incident and various others. Hushing things up seems to be a very common theme which in itself gives reason for pause. Not to mention hydroelectric disasters don't make the lands uninhabitable for generations. Build new dam, pump the rest dry and you're good to go again. There's no such thing with nuclear power. The argument of newer nuclear plants being much safer is also true for hydroelectric dams. The number of deaths in modern parts of the world is nearly zero. The hydroelectric death toll is mostly shaped by a single disaster in what was then a not very sophisticated part of the world.

How sure are we that that many people even died in that dam break? The Wikipedia article references some web article. The same article even states the casualty rate was much lower. "According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine." That's already an order of magnitude lower. If you recalculate the deaths per watt produced that's about the same as solar, wind and nuclear power, but without the risk of blowing your country into oblivion for centuries. Helping yourself out of the frying pan into the nuclear fire isn't making things better. It's just making things different.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 10:14:20 pm
It is very difficult to judge the dangers of nuclear energy. Some of the dangers are in the far future and thus not easy to know, as we obviously don't have experience with 1000 year old nuclear fuel. The accident probabilities are also open to controversial discussions. It also gets more tricky if breeding reactors are needed, as the supply of uranium is to low for large scale once through nuclear.
It's difficult but it's been studied for over 30 years now, we do have ballpark figures and they are enough to show that nuclear is one of the safest energy sources we know. 1000 year old nuclear fuel is going to be far less dangerous than the fresh fuel, and if buried in deep geological repositories it will not cause any harm to anyone on the surface. (Please don't tell me the earth might be hollow :) ).

Anyway nuclear energy has other reasons why it can't replace coal as a main energy source:
For all we know so far nuclear energy turned out rather expensive and promises of low cost just did not turn out good. Even pro-nuclear calculations put the cost higher than for PV or wind at a reasonable location. Much of the costs are up-front and thus need capital willing to invest in a technology that is likely not economic.
Much of the reason why nuclear appears to be so expensive is because other energy sources don't pay for all their own costs, while nuclear have been forced to over the years. It is fine that they have do that, but it should be the same for all types of energy.

The 2nd issue is that it would take too long to build a large number of reactors - maybe not as long as with fusion, but still more like 50 years. There are just not the facilities to build the classical reactor types in significant numbers and new designs take a long certification and development process.
I think you are right that nuclear can't replace coal quickly enough, but we should not decommission working nuclear power stations before we have gotten rid of fossil fuels. And we can still replace some percentage of coal power with new nuclear reactors, so we should build as many new nuclear reactors as possible.

There is also the political problem that the neighbors also take part of the risk and if in doubt may also have to pay for the disposal if the money hold back was not enough or got lost, e.g. to corrupt politicians or economic trouble. I don't think the US would be happy with Cuba tuning towards nuclear energy. Much of the cover-up  :-DD at Chernobyl is currently paid from western Europe and not Russia or the Ukraine.
I won't expect failing states have a good eye on the money laid back to properly dispose the waste or just keep up safety at the intended levels.
In Sweden at least all nuclear reactors have to pay to a fund that covers future waste disposal for example. It's the same in Finland, and the storage they are currently constructing is much cheaper than what the reactor operators have been forced to pay already.

It is hard to do a full economic analysis as a layman, but people still build nuclear reactors, so it can't be too expensive to be practical at least. If it was possible to replace coal with only solar, then that would be great, but it isn't so we need an alternative, and the only alternative is nuclear. So it doesn't matter if it's a little bit more expensive, we still need it.

EDIT: Additionally, if what you said is true then it makes even less sense for the countries that are responsible to stop using nuclear power while other countries like Russia still continues using their RBMK reactors. China and North Korea isn't going to stop using nuclear just because we do.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: nctnico on January 05, 2019, 10:20:03 pm
I don't think we can really come to a conclusion here. Basically every choice is bad.

I'm wondering about opinions wether something will actually change in the next 10 years when it comes to CO2 reduction. Climate scientists seem to point out the next 10 years will be crucial to achieve a real change.

Personally I think nothing significant will happen to achieve a significant CO2 reduction and most of the plans put in motion are just window dressing. The negative impact on the world's economy will be too severe when making a radical change in such a short timespan.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 10:23:57 pm
I don't think we can really come to a conclusion here. Basically every choice is bad.

I'm wondering about opinions wether something will actually change in the next 10 years when it comes to CO2 reduction. Climate scientists seem to point out the next 10 years will be crucial to achieve a real change.

Personally I think nothing significant will happen to achieve a significant CO2 reduction and most of the plans put in motion are just window dressing. The negative impact on the world's economy will be too severe when making a radical change in such a short timespan.
Nothing relevant will happen. The countries that would need to be on board won't change a thing, as they have most to lose. We'll start making changes as the world is burning and flooding. Much too late, and barely enough. Like we always do when it comes to serious large scale issues.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 10:39:00 pm
As we've discussed before, comparing numbers isn't going to fly.
I see, you are going to ignore the facts when they don't suit you.

Various sources show the Soviet regime has downplayed the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, which means that comparing nuclear to hydroelectricity isn't so easily done.
The soviet union collapsed, so we know today what happened. It's been studied for over 30 years. When the science doesn't agree with your gospel you just ignore it apparently.

The same has been happening in the Fukushima incident and various others. Hushing things up seems to be a very common theme which in itself gives reason for pause.
Hushing things up is a common theme that also applies to hydro electric and coal for example. And yes, we don't know the full extent of Fukushima but it's probably not worse than Chernobyl, and for sure not so much worse that it is going to change the fact that nuclear is safer.

The argument of newer nuclear plants being much safer is also true for hydroelectric dams. The number of deaths in modern parts of the world is nearly zero. The hydroelectric death toll is mostly shaped by a single disaster in what was then a not very sophisticated part of the world.
The same can be said about Chernobyl, it was poorly constructed and managed by people who had a poor understanding of the technology. In the modern parts of the world we don't get the same kind of disasters (compare with Three mile island for example). Fukushima was ultimately caused by a tsunami and earthquake, hydro dams are also going to fail if they are hit by record earthquakes or other natural disasters, try googling what will happen if the hoover dam breaks or the three gorges dam in china breaks.

"According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine." That's already an order of magnitude lower. If you recalculate the deaths per watt produced that's about the same as solar, wind and nuclear power, but without the risk of blowing your country into oblivion for centuries.
26000+145000=171000 how is that an order of magnitude lower. ??? I don't understand how you came up with that result.
And "blowing your country into oblivion for centuries" is just more scaremongering. Evacuating Pripyat was expensive but so it is if a hydro dam fails and you have to rebuild everything. If you read the study I posted (why are you asking for sources if you don't plan on reading them?) then you see air pollution is also expensive: "The health impacts from exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 can be conservatively estimated to cause socio-economic costs of ~56 billion Krona in 2015." That's ~6.2 billion USD annually.

Can't help to notice that you never provide any sources of your own.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 10:39:55 pm
I see, you are going to ignore the facts when they don't suit you.
Oh sweet, sweet irony.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 10:45:31 pm
The irony is that you have only managed to provide a ridiculous claim from an activist you-tube video. :palm: While you accuse others for not providing sources and ignoring facts. You have been showered in studies that you just ignore. You are obviously not interested in a honest discussion about this.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 10:48:46 pm
The irony is that you have only managed to provide a ridiculous claim from an activist you-tube video. :palm: While you accuse others for not providing sources and ignoring facts. You have been showered in studies that you just ignore. You are obviously not interested in a honest discussion about this.
Only a video taped testimony of a highly relevant expert who was on the ground at the time, on top of a huge pile of other evidence which points in the exact same direction. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 05, 2019, 10:49:33 pm
26000+145000=171000 how is that an order of magnitude lower. ??? I don't understand how you came up with that result.
And "blowing your country into oblivion for centuries" is just more scaremongering. Evacuating Pripyat was expensive but so it is if a hydro dam fails and you have to rebuild everything. If you read the study I posted (why are you asking for sources if you don't plan on reading them?) then you see air pollution is also expensive: "The health impacts from exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 can be conservatively estimated to cause socio-economic costs of ~56 billion Krona in 2015." That's ~6.2 billion USD annually.

Can't help to notice that you never provide any sources of your own.
The Wikipedia article reports that the reported death toll is 26000. Famine and sickness have nothing to do with hydroelectric power, as they're not a direct result like radiation sickness and DNA damage is. It's at worst an indication China was pushing its infrastructure and services too hard in an era of artificially accelerated growth. Not that we've seen any peer reviewed research showing even that number, so it's questionable how many people actually died. Common sense tells us 171000 is a silly number anyway. We've all seen the impact of the 2004 tsunamis which impacted a much bigger area across many nations and densely populated coastal areas and that was a bigger disaster by not that much of a margin.

I've provided plenty of sources up to and including an actual video recording of an expert saying the exact thing I've been saying, which you've all attempted to conveniently brush aside. Now you're the one making all sorts of claims about hydroelectric power, so you'll have to provide the evidence. You've indicated before that you felt that peer reviewed papers are most appropriate.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 10:58:52 pm
I don't think we can really come to a conclusion here. Basically every choice is bad.
Some choices are worse than others.

I'm wondering about opinions wether something will actually change in the next 10 years when it comes to CO2 reduction. Climate scientists seem to point out the next 10 years will be crucial to achieve a real change.
The use of fossil fuel isn't just increasing, it's accelerating. It should have been brought to zero many years ago.

Personally I think nothing significant will happen to achieve a significant CO2 reduction and most of the plans put in motion are just window dressing. The negative impact on the world's economy will be too severe when making a radical change in such a short timespan.
Economists have concluded it's much more expensive to do nothing in the long run. Unfortunately too many in the world suffer from fact resistance and denial of knowledge. Since the worlds remaining superpower, USA, is still stalling, nothing much is going to happen in the near future.

But as I've been saying, even if we ignore climate change, air pollution is such a big problem it makes sense to get rid of fossil fuel burning anyway.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 05, 2019, 11:20:17 pm
Famine and sickness have nothing to do with hydroelectric power, as they're not a direct result like radiation sickness and DNA damage is.
Of course it was a direct result of the dam breaking.

It's at worst an indication China was pushing its infrastructure and services too hard in an era of artificially accelerated growth.
We can say the problems in the Soviet Union was the cause of the Chernobyl accident and how it was handled as well.

Not that we've seen any peer reviewed research showing even that number, so it's questionable how many people actually died. Common sense tells us 171000 is a silly number anyway. We've all seen the impact of the 2004 tsunamis which impacted a much bigger area across many nations and densely populated coastal areas and that was a bigger disaster by not that much of a margin.
Fine, so now when it suits your interest you are going to demand all facts can be traced to peer reviewed research.
Great, then disregard the comparison with hydro electric if you will, I'm not against hydro, it was only to put things into perspective. It's still obvious that nuclear is very safe, and in particular much safer than coal.

We can make another comparison instead, in the Swedish study I referenced before it says 900 die every year because of air pollution from wood stoves in Sweden. Do the math. I assume you are now going to argue for a ban of wood burning or else you are a hypocrite.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 06, 2019, 05:08:10 pm
From the thread about EVs:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/overview/
Quote
In 2016, household and outdoor air pollution led to some 7 million deaths worldwide.
That's only one year. That air pollution comes from burning and could be avoided if people had access to electricity. It's clearly much safer with nuclear power than using fire.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 06, 2019, 07:52:40 pm
Apis, what 'solutions' are you arguing for, and what exactly do you want the world to do?

Just more nuclear power plants?

What about more renewable energy?

(Solar, in particular, since most of our energy comes from the sun already, and efficiency is improving significantly over time)

The recent Laos dam collapse should have awakened a global debate on corporate irresponsibility, and lack of effective governmental oversight due to deals that intentionally tie governments hands.

Lots could be said about shoddy construction practices and failure by the Laos government to properly regulate the builders, but it wasn't. The media seems to have fallen strangely silent. Why no discussion? Is it a symptom of deeper problems?

Why should we think that a general breakdown in regulatory oversight by nations everywhere would not also apply to nuclear now too, even though the stakes are far higher?

Consider this- sea level rise means we could potentially lose a substantial percentage of the world's farmland, including the incredibly rich delta areas of major rivers. Serious nuclear accidents (and maybe we should consider them all potentially serious under the circumstances) could render precious farmland unavailable for many generations or even millennia, or even more.

IMHO, just as we all agree more fossil fuel use is not a good solution, maybe we should consider the dam problem, perhaps building more dams is not the solution, nor are more nuclear power plants, given the risks- losing increasingly precious arable land for thousands of years.

On the other hand, solar is an increasingly mature technology thats steadily improving. Especially if we can change our lifestyles to better make use of it.

Wind power, especially if sited in places like mountain passes where the sound doesn't bother nearby residents, also has a lot of potential thats still unrealized.

We also should work on developing and improving new turbine designs that can better utilize lower wind velocities, with the goal of having multiple, independent, diverse sources of renewable energy at hand, as well as local manufacturing capability.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 06, 2019, 08:46:23 pm
Burning more coal and oil is not a good idea, because of pollution (including CO2). However if we don't act this might happen, as the negatives hit us all and not just the source.
Natural gas should in many aspects at least be better than coal, and may help to get a little more time.

Building up more PV (or other solar) and wind sounds logical. However it gets increasingly difficult as it needs additional storage when used as the main source. It also depends where you are. There will be more renewable, the main question is how fast.

There are few other sources like bio-gas, hydro and geothermal. However while these can be good at some places the potential is limited. So they can help, but only for a part (could be still more than nuclear) and often limited to some areas.
Building more nuclear does not look like it would work  - like fusion its likely too late getting much power. So maybe a small side note like geothermal - and at a high price.

Chances are that energy will get more expensive, unless we find cheap storage. So we kind of have to expect to adapt to this by using less energy. It could help to already now raise the prices by higher taxes on energy so that we start to adapt earlier - usually we are slow to react and things like houses are build for a long time.

There is small chance that PV or wind can be cheaper than coal, even if one includes storage. From that point the turn over could be relatively fast. It's kind of only a question when this happens, if more of the pollution costs are charged to the coal.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 06, 2019, 08:54:38 pm
I bet you many households could cut their energy use in half or more.

It helps a lot if you own, I don't see renters as having many options compared to homeowners. Perhaps thats a good reason right there to subsidize people owning their own small homes instead of renting. We could have yearly competitions in every country to design the best low cost manufactured home for the money, and then they could face off with one another around the globe.

It would be a great way to get a bunch of different engineering disciplines to work together on a major world problem, bring attention to it and the ideas they came up with would get a lot of attention and be subject to the hive mind effect, which would lead to rapid improvement.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 06, 2019, 09:22:25 pm
Apis, what 'solutions' are you arguing for, and what exactly do you want the world to do?
We need to use all available alternatives to replace fossil fuels and we will still have to reduce power consumption.

Solar is pretty ideal but it still does not provide energy when it's dark, which is the big problem, and there is no storage solution available (we can't just wait and hope it will be invented in the future). Wind has the same problem, only produces energy when the wind is blowing. So we can't rely on wind and solar alone. Another problem is that it takes time to expand solar and wind. Solar is new and the production capacity is limited. Wind power stations don't produce much energy, you need thousands of wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station, and the production capacity of those are also limited. So expanding solar and wind also takes a lot of time. So to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible we need to also build as many new nuclear power plants as we can, even if that will only replace 12% of the existing coal power plants it's still a significant number.

Gas is marginally better than coal, but still better I suppose, but not something we should be investing in long term. Bio-fuel burning have all the downsides of coal except for CO2 emissions. Potential for geothermal only exist in very few locations like Iceland, it's negligible. Hydro is more dangerous than nuclear, but it's still a very good option, but there are only so many rivers and most that can be used are already used, so its also not possible to expand much (it also kills the life in the rivers and lakes).

So of course we should expand solar as much as possible, and wind, and hydro and geothermal. Just as we should expand nuclear. We should definitely not close down working and safe nuclear reactors as long as there still exist coal power plants. Even if we do all that we will still have to reduce power consumption to get rid of the remaining fraction of fossil fuel from the energy mix.

Solar is most efficient near the equator so countries near the equator should have higher priority on getting the solar panels, while far north/south we should focus more on nuclear (and hydro when available). Most northern countries use nuclear already anyway so it's not much of a change.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: NiHaoMike on January 07, 2019, 01:45:50 am
Bio-fuel burning have all the downsides of coal except for CO2 emissions.
Also solves a few more pollution problems like mercury and sulfur.

I wonder why there's not more investment in damless hydroelectric. It would be similar to wind power except it would work 24/7.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on January 07, 2019, 02:24:13 am
There’s a few technologies in use addressing waste like capping landfills and harvesting the methane for power generation.
But there has to be a will to make the long term investment in gensets and grid infrastructure.
A school buddy did the number crunching to prove it was a goer for this project.
https://orders.wastemanagement.co.nz/site/redvale-energy-park-community/
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 07, 2019, 03:27:26 am
I wonder why there's not more investment in damless hydroelectric. It would be similar to wind power except it would work 24/7.
Because you can use hydro electric for storage. When the wind is not blowing you turn on the hydro dam. When it begins to blow again you turn it off and water is stored in the dam for later use. But there is not enough suitable rivers in the world that you can use hydro everywhere, so it is not a global solution.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on January 07, 2019, 03:35:09 am
I wonder why there's not more investment in damless hydroelectric. It would be similar to wind power except it would work 24/7.
Because you can use hydro electric for storage. When the wind is not blowing you turn on the hydro dam. When it begins to blow again you turn it off and water is stored in the dam for later use. But there is not enough suitable rivers in the world that you can use hydro everywhere, so it is not a global solution.
There’s tidal generation too that IMO has been under exploited.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 07, 2019, 03:38:32 am
Apis, what 'solutions' are you arguing for, and what exactly do you want the world to do?
We need to use all available alternatives to replace fossil fuels and we will still have to reduce power consumption.

...
Solar is most efficient near the equator so countries near the equator should have higher priority on getting the solar panels, while far north/south we should focus more on nuclear (and hydro when available). Most northern countries use nuclear already anyway so it's not much of a change.

Apis, I think the need for power may go down. Because power consumption, especially at night, is a good indicator of the health of an economy, I'm told.

Let me start out with wy the economy may soon constrict.

T thanks to WTO rules, we're told that we cant make decisions like th one you suggest any more, whomever pays the most money determines where commodities like solar panels, natural gas, water etc. must go. With labor it will be the opposite. Whomever works for the cheapest gets the jobs. Its will become the Corporations decision if they want to bring in labor to run the power plants, wherever they are located, as local content requirements (LCRs) are being eliminated. So  they will be able to get their nuclear engineers and oil rig workers wherever they are the cheapest, like they do in the Middle East now. Paying them in their home currency. Overseas. The faster the business slacks off, the faster these changes (similar to the kafala system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafala_system), will be implemented, 'saving' trillions of dollars now spent on whats its claimed are unnecessarily high wages.

See the OECD's publications on mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the ILO's publications on migrant labor's conditions under Mode Four.

Our economies are inefficient now (with all the overpriced labor, we're behind the times they say.) People are using energy like its going out of style. But things are looking up for the environment, thanks to the WTO and its 'efficiency gains' (job losses).

Who needs more nuclear power plants when nobody can afford electricity.

There are no Home Depots in favelas.

The problem though may end up being economic suicide if they sign a contract but then there is no demand they still may have to build it. I've seen lots of stadiums and housing developments like that in my drive across the country. Ghost towns and ghost arenas.  Bridges to nowhere.

Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 07, 2019, 03:46:13 am
There’s tidal generation too that IMO has been under exploited.
Maybe. There was a company that was testing wave generators here in Sweden recently, but it turned out it didn't work well enough to be viable. There are lots of great ideas, but if we are to replace fossil fuels today (and according to climate scientist we should have done that ten years ago) we need things that we know work and that we can start building right now.

In the future maybe we can replace the remaining nuclear power plants with tidal generators and solar power that uses storage from some new invention, that will be great, but we can't do that today.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 07, 2019, 03:56:14 am
So, basically, the solution you envision is more and bigger nuclear power plants?
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on January 07, 2019, 03:58:19 am
There’s tidal generation too that IMO has been under exploited.
Maybe. There was a company that was testing wave generators here in Sweden recently, but it turned out it didn't work well enough to be viable. There are lots of great ideas, but if we are to replace fossil fuels today (and according to climate scientist we should have done that ten years ago) we need things that we know work and that we can start building right now.

In the future maybe we can replace the remaining nuclear power plants with tidal generators and solar power that uses storage from some new invention, that will be great, but we can't do that today.
Sure but if you consider premium tidal flow sites like the Straits of Gibraltar and the potential GWs it could provide only the will to tackle such a project would seem to be the stumbling block.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 07, 2019, 04:10:42 am
There’s tidal generation too that IMO has been under exploited.
Maybe. There was a company that was testing wave generators here in Sweden recently, but it turned out it didn't work well enough to be viable. There are lots of great ideas, but if we are to replace fossil fuels today (and according to climate scientist we should have done that ten years ago) we need things that we know work and that we can start building right now.

In the future maybe we can replace the remaining nuclear power plants with tidal generators and solar power that uses storage from some new invention, that will be great, but we can't do that today.
Sure but if you consider premium tidal flow sites like the Straits of Gibraltar and the potential GWs it could provide only the will to tackle such a project would seem to be the stumbling block.
I don't know a lot about it. Wouldn't it hurt animals and plants in the oceans? I know the hydroelectric dams are pretty devastating to the wildlife in the rivers and lakes they are built in. It would also only produce energy intermittently like solar? All alternatives to fossil fuels are good though, except the bad ones. :)

So, basically, the solution you envision is more and bigger nuclear power plants?
If you mean me, then no, as I've written numerous times now:
The solution is more of everything that can be used to replace fossil fuels, that includes nuclear, solar, wind, etc, etc. And that won't be enough anyway so we are also going to need to do significant energy reductions. Nuclear alone couldn't replace coal even if we tried because it would take too long time to build that many new reactors, we need to use every available option so that the need for energy reduction is as small as possible.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: tautech on January 07, 2019, 04:37:41 am
There’s tidal generation too that IMO has been under exploited.
Maybe. There was a company that was testing wave generators here in Sweden recently, but it turned out it didn't work well enough to be viable. There are lots of great ideas, but if we are to replace fossil fuels today (and according to climate scientist we should have done that ten years ago) we need things that we know work and that we can start building right now.

In the future maybe we can replace the remaining nuclear power plants with tidal generators and solar power that uses storage from some new invention, that will be great, but we can't do that today.
Sure but if you consider premium tidal flow sites like the Straits of Gibraltar and the potential GWs it could provide only the will to tackle such a project would seem to be the stumbling block.
I don't know a lot about it. Wouldn't it hurt animals and plants in the oceans? I know the hydroelectric dams are pretty devastating to the wildlife in the rivers and lakes they are built in. It would also only produce energy intermittently like solar? All alternatives to fossil fuels are good though, except the bad ones. :)
Really everything we do on this earth has some impact on flora and fauna, with pollution being the hardest to reverse whilst careful use of resources and new technologies allow us to harvest energy sources that were once only dreamed of.
WRT tidal generation, if the blades are large enough and available flow strong enough, blade rotational speeds can be kept slow with the use of gearing to minimise risks to sea dwelling creatures.
It’s a potential energy source available four times/day irrespective of sunlight or weather conditions.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Jwillis on January 07, 2019, 04:57:00 am
First of all I work in the petroleum industry and won't take anything that they say as truth or fact.Their objective is to make money, And couldn't care less if people freeze in the dark.I've seen and been on projects that were supposed to produce clean secondary electrical energy for local consumption .These projects were intentionally sabotaged by over spending budgets to sway investors to back out.Hence the projects are mothballed and sold off for scrap.
The new 5th generation nuclear reactors are extremely safe and efficient.One was supposed to be built near were I live.and it would have produce 40 Gigawatts of electricity which is twice the amount this Province uses now.Unfortunately people couldn't get their heads out of their back sides to listen to facts instead of emotional rhetoric. and scare tactics delivered from people who don't even live in this country.
Agreeably all forms of energy production is the way to go depending on geographic location.Every source will have it's benefits and draw backs.Solar panel production  requires a extremely toxic  manufacturing process and the area required for solar farms is immense compared to other sources. Nuclear power is expensive to start up and even with the new generation reactors ,what do you do with the waste that is produced.Wind again requires large areas of land and your relying on unpredictable wind patterns.Fossil fuel has it's draw backs as we all know to well.And many other forms are geographically dependent like hydro and geothermal.
The point is we can't have a win win situation and we need except the down sides with the potential benefits of every possible source .
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kleinstein on January 11, 2019, 03:07:00 pm
The production of PV panels depends on the type of panel. The normal crystalline cells do no need an especially toxic process. Some thin film panels use slightly toxic materials, but is relatively small quantities and usually it well encapsulated. It still needs quite some energy to make the PV panels.

The 5th generation nuclear concepts have to pretend they are safe. However most of the concepts considered are usually considered to be more problematic from the safety side than plain old BWR or PWR. They are advances in using more breeding so they need less uranium and this nearly always makes safety more difficult. Due to the reduced funding chances are high that there will be only very few 5 th generation reactors - maybe a few sodium cooled fast breeders from Russia, as here the development is well ahead of the others.

I totally agree that we will need several sources - more like all we can get that is clean and economically acceptable. For economic reasons this might exclude nuclear - especially the new reactor concepts.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: soldar on January 12, 2019, 10:36:51 am
You should follow our solution
This post makes no sense and yet it is "thanked" by a bunch of posters. I see much knee jerking going on here.

Let us see... The OP is complaining that his country and government have decided on a "economic suicide" policy on their own. Not mandated or even suggested by the EU at all. They are in the EU and have decided to do something on their own and have no problem doing it. The EU seems to not care.  So, the solution would be to leave the EU? Does not compute.

As for Brexit, it is clear by now that people in the UK had no idea what they were voting or what they would be getting into. Now it is becoming apparent and yet the UK continues to charge ahead bravely towards the cliff. If we are talking about economic suicide Brexit takes the cake.

It is not a problem of preferring one viable thing over another viable thing, it is a problem of wanting the impossible. You can promise two women for every man and two men for every woman and people could well vote for that but it is clear they will not be getting it.

Brexit has been a vote and a promise to leave the EU but not have border controls with the EU. You cannot be inside and outside the EU at the same time. It is a contradiction that nobody can make happen.
Quote
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Reality is beginning to set in and it ain't pretty but many in the UK choose to bury their head in the sand rather than face the reality of the facts.

The UK and Theresa May have become a Monty Python sketch
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOyT3ZkUxI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOyT3ZkUxI)
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 12, 2019, 04:22:54 pm
Have any of you heard this bizarre nuclear energy story? Eight years ago, in 2010, North Korea declared in a news story that they had successfully harnessed 'the energy of the sun' to make nuclear power. A number of news media in a bunch of countries scoffed it off.. and it was generally forgotten.

But, a small amount of data suggested it turned out that something had happened on that day, April 12, 2010.

And it makes an interesting story that has a very remote, I think, and unlikely possibility of being true. (But still, its a nonzero chance)

Anyway, seismology reports suggested there was a test of some kind, and so did radioisotopes detected in the area several days later.

I'll add some screenshots from the reports below in a bit.

--------

Brexit:

The thing thats going to bite Britons in Brexit is the price of leaving the WTO GATS and then a second bunch of demands will likely be made upon rejoining the organization anew. What people will realize is - FTAs, especially when they involve services, and procurement of same, are not about trade, they are a pretext, a big con against all of us - everywhere. Whose #1 goal is rolling back all the gains of the 20th century, not just decent wages, but also everything else. Literally almost everything that could be taken.

A problem being, that 'countries' are the way 'people' are supposed to have representation but 'countries' now are so heavily controlled by lobbies, that they now are representing corporations, not people.

 So we people have practically nobody anywhere standing up for our interests any more. Instead they are falling over one another to trade them away. Running up 'debts' to repay them in our names, is a very good analogy because thats exactly whats being done, without telling us.

People also don't have any "standing" as individuals at this supranational level (Most deon't even have the slightest idea of what it does or even that it exists) because of these huge shifts that have put the power in totally unaccountable "global economic governance organizations".

Since we're talking about energy, people should know,  the #1 area this has proven to be a disaster- is energy, unfortunately.  In the past corporations used to buy commercial insurance to indemnify themselves against risks.  That is how it should still be done now.

But, its not. Instead corporations have used their new found power to force countries to agree to almost irreversible deals that make it impossible to regulate when they need to. Its as if they tack the decks so corporations always win, almost, if any law is changed, even when the country has a very good reason to do so.  They have even been sued for raising minimum wages.

And this kind of suit, ("ISDS" investor vs. state)  involving energy (clashes between investors against nations) have been the most common category of these private, arbitrated legal suits.

ISDS now is a means by which taxpayers of nations are being stolen from on a massive scale.

See https://www.citizen.org/our-work/globalization-and-trade/investor-state-system (https://www.citizen.org/our-work/globalization-and-trade/investor-state-system) and https://isds.bilaterals.org (https://isds.bilaterals.org) for some background on what I mean. 
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: soldar on January 12, 2019, 06:38:52 pm
The thing thats going to bite Britons in Brexit is the price of leaving the WTO GATS and then a second bunch of demands will likely be made upon rejoining the organization anew. 
Brexit is the greatest blunder. I could not imagine something like this could happen.
Quote
"Thirty million, mostly fools."

Writer and economist Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), when asked the size of the population of England.
Of course, that is true of every country in the world and that is why we elect politicians who are supposed to bear the responsibility of governing and knowing what they are doing. But now the British Parliament and Government have abdicated their responsibility and painted the country into a corner.  The referendum should never have been carried out but once it was done and Cameron had resigned, the Commons should have done their duty, solemnly declared that Cameron is a moron, and that they were going to do their duty of governing for the benefit of the country. Instead they have resigned their responsibility and everybody is sitting around waiting for a miracle that cannot and will not happen. Disgraceful.

It is going to be a disaster for the British people and they bear some collective responsibility for the mistake they made when they voted but I place most of the responsibility on the politicians who have not been up to the task and their responsibility to guide the country.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: cdev on January 12, 2019, 10:13:24 pm
We have to understand how anxious certain groups of people are about the shifts which are coming in the next few decades.

Because those shifts are guaranteed to greatly reduce the sizes of the middle class, everywhere, under all current scenarios, substantially. Its unavoidable as jobs dry up. And unfortunately, long before they are eliminated by automation, they become the subject of trade commitments. Which some interpret as requiring a large scale shift of workforces via the principles of global value chains and comparative advantage. They make a compelling argument to some.

Since one's quality of life is so wedded to how much money a person's family has, what happens when fewer and fewer people work and the money wealthy people possess has little connection to work, except in generations past?

FTAs have little to do with trade and much more to do with attempting to create a voting-proof preemptive lock down of policy, an attempt to 'future proof' the future.

This is why "debts" created via deals like the GATS and other FTAs, as well as ISDS and 'big' energy projects, especially, which might require cancellation are dangerous.

As dangerous as relaxing financial services rules, because so much money could change hands without any safeguards in the hands of voters.

We're all under attack, we're being written off for the duration, already, but we don't realize it.

ISDS is just one of the new mechanisms which can be used.

 The temptation to do so could provide a attractive means too tantalizing for elites to resist, to snatch away (or trade away) many things that people took or sometimes still take for granted.  Because we're unrepresented, in the situation of global capture, its like the wolves run the henhouse now.

Is it everything thats not nailed down thats at risk? Bring this up here in the US and people respond with arguments saying that the very specific conditions which would trigger obligations have not been met yet, and that laws prevent Congress from doing the more extreme things that other countries claim we promised to do.
 
This is contradicted however by numerous online descriptions which tend to reflect the viewpoints of a particular cross section of people who claim that such promises were made.  The poor countries have a very well educated elite, very wealthy people, who are fighting for what they consider to be their entitlement. They want the Western countries to hand over the 'benefits' they claim they had been promised for joining groups like the WTO. The shift requires the privatization of large numbers of 'services' (and the jobs done by workers in them, as well as some other things that governments control, everything they control must support the new priority of increasing international trade.) Its assumed this will dramatically impact the indigenous workforces in developed countries, as rules silently kick in that put the targeted service sectors more decidedly into play.  How would this be done? WTO rules require the measures be 'minimally trade restrictive' and also that subsidies and countervailing measures such as local content requirements and other non-tariff barriers to trade - regulations of all kinds above some global least common denominator all countries agree upon, which is very controversial because human rights and any controversial aspect like what is bad for health, are totally left out) Existing rules successfully framed as posing a barrier to poor countries firms getting their just due, must be gradually eliminated ('progressive liberalization') Professions are supposed to produce documents as to how mutual recognition of academic qualifications and licensing will proceed. But so far only the ones for accounting (http://www.johnflood.com/summerschool/Arnold_WTO_AOS_2005.PDF) seem to have been finished.

If one reads the trade literature, in one place one might read how fog in trade agreements and "creative ambiguity" is useful, (in confusing the public) and elsewhere how such changes would result in huge 'efficiency gains' (due to falling wages of high paid, they seem to all agree, too well paid workers, not acknowledging the worth of others labor seems endemic in the kinds of people who dream these schemes up) etc.

They rehash again and again their same long debunked trickle down-ish arguments which don't stand up to close examination.

Similar to the situations in other areas, one not only gets the impression the decisions have already been made to do much of that and that the 'debate' is phony, its actually easy to show that is the case, if you simply peel off another layer of the 'trade' onion.

In this environment of dishonesty, even the most innocent looking change is fraught with risks, because in this world of hidden traps caused by unseen trade implications to everything, nothing is what it seems to be.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on January 12, 2019, 11:08:30 pm
The irony is that you have only managed to provide a ridiculous claim from an activist you-tube video. :palm: While you accuse others for not providing sources and ignoring facts. You have been showered in studies that you just ignore. You are obviously not interested in a honest discussion about this.
It's remarkable, isn't it? Many pages you've frustrated the discussion by systematically contesting everything, refusing to concede any point not in line with your position and flat out denying evidence or spinning its relevance. I haven't even emulated that style for a handful of posts and already you've come to the conclusion that's obviously not how a honest discussion is conducted. Imagine how patient we've been.

Let's cut the crap and have a proper discussion with some mutual respect without resorting to obstructive tactics. You seem to be reasonable enough in other discussions, so I don't see why we couldn't be here.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: apis on January 13, 2019, 09:56:25 pm
Let's cut the crap and have a proper discussion with some mutual respect without resorting to obstructive tactics. You seem to be reasonable enough in other discussions, so I don't see why we couldn't be here.
If you want a mutually respectful discussion maybe you shouldn't begin by insulting the other party. ::)

As you said before, I don't think we will get any further, so for everyone's sake it is probably best to let it rest.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: IanMacdonald on February 23, 2019, 09:22:28 pm
Bottom line, I won't pass comment but simply direct the reader to the figures for money spent and progress so far with replacing world fossil fuel usage with wind and solar energy:

https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources

It's said that money talks  :blah: :-DMM and sometimes I think it shows more intelligence than do humans.  :-\
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Kjelt on February 23, 2019, 11:24:58 pm
Shocking and sad, the yearly global increase/demand for energy is more than the increase of green energy sources can provide, let alone decrease traditional energy sources.
Title: Re: My country is going to commit economic suicide ...
Post by: Mr. Scram on February 24, 2019, 03:42:48 am
If you want a mutually respectful discussion maybe you shouldn't begin by insulting the other party. ::)

As you said before, I don't think we will get any further, so for everyone's sake it is probably best to let it rest.
I didn't insult you, so please don't pretend I did. I just asked you to drop the act you weren't very patient with when reversed.