Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour

[Cyberax]

Total power production is still very relevant, since different power sources can be exchanged in many cases -- for example using natural gas for heating and cooking instead of electricity. A good old electric heater gobbles more electricity than all your computers put together, and going all nuclear is not the solution. Better insulation and other heating methods are.

As your own data says, only fraction of total power output goes into electrical production. So your own data shows that better insulation and heating will not seriously impact power consumption.

Then how does hydro alone generate more electicity than nuclear? http://www.pewclimate.org/technology...ew/electricity

Uhm... You link shows that the USA generates 19% of electricity using the nuclear power and 6% using hydro.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Overview_E2.jpg

Almost 78%, actually. Talking about statistics... It's nice to pull France out of your hat, as the outlier, and ignore developed countries like Australia, Denmark, New Zealand or Norway, which use no nuclear power.

Because they either don't need it (Norway, New Zealand) because of abundance of hydro power or happily use coal (Denmark, Australia).

The problem with NEW technologies is that they have to make ground. Denmark is already generating 20% of its energy using wind, and are planning to reach 50% in the medium term.

And it's only possible because it can buy energy from hydro power plants in Norway and Sweden. It's not possible everywhere else (actually, almost nowhere else). And buffering capacity of Norway and Sweden is already nearly exhausted, Denmark will have to re-engineer its whole grid if the goal of 50% renewable power is to be reached.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7404

Germany is generating about a quarter of its electricity from nuclear, and they are all getting shut off soon. That's the way to go.

And this capacity will be replaced by coal and natural gas. Way to go, morons.

[Cyberax]

I find the way you are combining financial cost and human lives into a single "cost factor" highly cynical

Not really. Nuclear power wins if you consider human lives or money separately.

but that apart, you are not fair with this statement either: uranium is not lying exactly around on the street either; it is mined, and unlike coal, it is highly toxic not only due to its radioactive isotopes (and their decay products like radon) but also chemically.

Modern uranium mining is safe. The chemical toxicity of uranium oxide in ores is negligible, it's much less than toxicity of other heavy metals like arsenic in the same ore. The main danger is radon contamination, but it's not an issue in open pit mining.

Also, if you want to assess the risks associated with nuclear power, you must not only take into account the risk coming from the reactors themselves, but also the disposal of the radioactive waste. If you search for it, you will find that, while nuclear power is being steadily ramped up, there is still no permanent storage anywhere in the countries actually using it!

Yes, and have you asked yourself why is it so? It's quite simple, the amount of high-level waste that can't be reprocessed is minuscule. It can fit into a a tennis court sized building about 10 meters high. So for now it's just politically easy to leave it lying around.

In future, it should be stored in geologically stable repositories, like Yucca mountain. Or maybe buried in the ocean floor in subduction zones where it'll be pulled into the Earth's mantle eventually.

As the usage of renewable energies for large-scale power production is a comparatively young field, their small contribution to the worldwide energy consumption is a trivial fact on which no arguments about their potential to replace nuclear (and also fossil fuel on the long run) can be made.

Sorry to interrupt you, but the problem right now is to replace fossil fuels and then nuclear.

I am very confident that investing enough money into R&D, the construction of new facilities and into the necessary changes to the power grid (decentralization, power storage, etc.) would make the replacement feasible over the next few decades.

If you haven't noticed, we're at the peak oil. Peak natural gas is probably 4-5 years in future. Then you'll have rely only on coal (which is abundant) for fossil fuels.

Plus, there is also nuclear fusion which, with enough research funding, might also evolve into a powerful alternative to fission. And don't tell me there is no money for that, there is money for all kind of crap, and satisfying our power needs (and that of the developing countries) will arguable be one of the prime challenges of the future.

Fusion is nice, and more money should be spent on it. But it's getting nowhere fast, mostly because nuclear power is a zombie field.

Of course instantly switching off all nuclear power plants is simply impossible, but that is not the point: major efforts should be directed at replacing it gradually starting _now_, and this is not what has been happening over the last years.

Replacing it with what exactly?

[pingufunkybeat]

As your own data says, only fraction of total power output goes into electrical production. So your own data shows that better insulation and heating will not seriously impact power consumption.

Of course it will impact the amount of electricity that goes into heating. If you heat buildings using gas, it is more efficient than if you burn gas, then convert it into electricity, then turn the electricity back into heat, like is done in most of Germany, for example.

Just cut THAT and you don't need nuclear power in Germany at all.

Uhm... You link shows that the USA generates 19% of electricity using the nuclear power and 6% using hydro.

My link shows that hydro generates more electricity worldwide than nuclear.

Because they either don't need it (Norway, New Zealand) because of abundance of hydro power or happily use coal (Denmark, Australia).

I don't quite understand the "don't need it" (don't need electricity?) part, but it shows that it's very much possible to have a nuclear-free electricity system.

And it's only possible because it can buy energy from hydro power plants in Norway and Sweden. It's not possible everywhere else (actually, almost nowhere else).

The vast majority of the world's countries don't have nuclear reactors

You're right that coal is another big problem, and it should also be phased out.

And this capacity will be replaced by coal and natural gas. Way to go, morons.

It is being replaced by wind power and solar, and the renewable energy plans are very ambitious.

Dude, the nuclear plants in Germany are leaking all over the bloody place, and the nuclear waste storage is unsafe. It's a time bomb and they have two options

- invest billions into new nuclear plants to replace old nuclear plants
- invest billions into renewable power.

[srg_13]

I am sorry, but have to react on this. What do you mean by the media is over reacting on this? Together with Chernobyl this incident clearly shows that nuclear power is NOT a sustainable option. What I do not understand about all this pro nuclear lobby is how you can minimize the nuclear risk? What else has to happen to proof otherwises? Remember that risk equals the chance of something going wrong multiplied with the consequence. Well, the chance of something might be lower than a plane crashing (which actually might be wrong, but just for the sake of the argument), but the consequences are...well you witnessed that first hand.

Interesting fact - more people have died from medical complications from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (and its cleanup, where they used carcinogenic dispersants) than will eventually die from this event.

[yotambien]

Interesting fact - more people have died from medical complications from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (and its cleanup, where they used carcinogenic dispersants) than will eventually die from this event.

That's not a fact.

[89c51]

yeah people

humans die one way or another theres nothing unnatural about it

[Cyberax]

Of course it will impact the amount of electricity that goes into heating. If you heat buildings using gas, it is more efficient than if you burn gas, then convert it into electricity, then turn the electricity back into heat, like is done in most of Germany, for example.
Just cut THAT and you don't need nuclear power in Germany at all.

Wrong. That'll be nowhere close enough.

My link shows that hydro generates more electricity worldwide than nuclear.

By about 1%, not 78% as you've stated.

I don't quite understand the "don't need it" (don't need electricity?) part, but it shows that it's very much possible to have a nuclear-free electricity system.

They are fortunate enough to have abundant hydro resources, and/or they happily pollute the atmosphere with fossil fuels.

You're right that coal is another big problem, and it should also be phased out.

With WHAT?!? Only nuclear power can replace coal baseload plants. There's simply no alternative in sight. None. Nada. Zilch.

Hydro is basically maxed out (and also it has consequences of its own). Geothermal can't be used everywhere. And there's simply not enough biomass in the world.

Various schemes of heat storage are waaaay too expensive.

Dude, the nuclear plants in Germany are leaking all over the bloody place, and the nuclear waste storage is unsafe. It's a time bomb and they have two options

Were there any significant leaks? No, there wasn't.

- invest billions into new nuclear plants to replace old nuclear plants
- invest billions into renewable power.

And then invest hundreds of billions to buy gas from Russia. And probably build more coal power plants.

[GunterNimmer]

Phoronix: Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour
and US / European news media and politicians now over-reacting about nuclear energy concerns

Such an opinion is really disgusting and a disregard for human dignity.

I studied physics and am now approaching my PhD in this field now. In a lecture about particle physics we had a visiting professor giving a talk about Chernobyl. He was the head of the Ukraine counsil on particle physics and reactor safety. That man, standing in front of us, after 25 years, was not able to hold his tears back about what happend in Chernobyl. He told us that they oberve 100.000 cases of thyroid cancer, where a 1000 cases would be normal. But thyroid cancer is just one form of cancer that is caused by nuclear fallout. He showed us a graphic illustrating how certain cancer types are distributed in Ukraine/Belarus and how they are distributed in the rest of the world. The factor was always between 5 and 100.

However, he told us that that is not the only reason why people in Belarus and part of the Ukraine are slowly dying. Another reason is that people, men and women, get less and less fertile. So many people are not able to get children anymore. Furthermore, there are large parts of the country that cannot be used in any way. However, people are forced to grow and eat plants there, because they are not rich enough to go away. They are forced to eat vegetables with a raditation count that is up to 100 times higher than ususal. Always with the bad feeling when this might lead to cancer.

Overall, it takes 5% of the Ukraine's gross domestic product to take some basic care of the remainings of the Chernobyl accident. Currently they are building the larget moveable building above the Chernobyl concrete sarcophagus in the hope(!) that in a hundred years from now there will be robots that might be able to withstand the radiation and clear the side.


I'm sure you didn't mean it this way. But what you wrote is disgusting in every possible way. You should really be ashamed...

[pingufunkybeat]

By about 1%, not 78% as you've stated.

You confused something. 78% is how much electricity in France comes from nuclear (not 100% like you stated).

They are fortunate enough to have abundant hydro resources, and/or they happily pollute the atmosphere with fossil fuels.

Nuclear countries also pollute the atmosphere with fossil fuels (and considerably more than Denmark, while we're at it).

With WHAT?!? Only nuclear power can replace coal baseload plants. There's simply no alternative in sight. None. Nada. Zilch.

Hydro is basically maxed out (and also it has consequences of its own). Geothermal can't be used everywhere. And there's simply not enough biomass in the world.

Not all plants must be baseload plants. Baseload can be provided by hydro and natural gas (far more environmental than coal) in the long run.

Nobody is advocating shutting all the world's nuclear plants off tomorrow. Just a gradual phasing out, as is being done in Germany.

At this very moment, Portugal draws 45% of its electricity from clean sources (none from nuclear). I think Austria is above 50% too. Denmark is planning to use 50% wind by 2020. It's doable, if we stop sinking money into nuclear and invest in future-proof technologies.

Romania draws a quarter of its electricity from hydro. There are many possibilities still left in Europe, and many involve no environmental impact at all (not dams, but underground turbines between lakes at different altitudes).

Various schemes of heat storage are waaaay too expensive.

As opposed to nuclear waste storage, which is known to be both safe and cheap:

2 September 2008: The German government confirmed that the Asse II facility, a nuclear waste storage that held 126,000 barrels of waste, has a leak, and has been leaking for over twenty years. After this confirmation, Germany was forced to think about another place for storing all the waste.

Were there any significant leaks? No, there wasn't.

Enough to have several of them shut down.

I visited one of these plants (Krummel) many years ago, and got a guided tour, including brainwashing about how it is 100% safe. Shortly afterwards, they had a set of electrical problems, and got shut down, then it was restarted, and they had another set of problems, and screwed up the reactor, and now it's permanently offline.

Actually, I have a friend, who wanted to work with solar energy, but had no choice but to accept a job in a nuclear company instead. Within one month, she got brainwashed into thinking that radiation is actually great for your health. There are huge companies who stand to lose a lot of money if people stop building nuclear power plants, so there's lots of brainwashing going on. What they don't tell you is what they plan to do with the waste.

[Cyberax]

Such an opinion is really disgusting and a disregard for human dignity.

So it's much better to support fossil fuels which cause untold sufferings. But with dignity.

He told us that they oberve 100.000 cases of thyroid cancer, where a 1000 cases would be normal. But thyroid cancer is just one form of cancer that is caused by nuclear fallout.

All the radioactive iodine causing thyroid cancer was gone in 1 year after the disaster. Its half-life is just 8 days.

He showed us a graphic illustrating how certain cancer types are distributed in Ukraine/Belarus and how they are distributed in the rest of the world. The factor was always between 5 and 100.

Frankly, I doubt the sources.

However, he told us that that is not the only reason why people in Belarus and part of the Ukraine are slowly dying. Another reason is that people, men and women, get less and less fertile. So many people are not able to get children anymore.

LOL! ROTFL!

There's absolutely no problem with fertility in the Ukraine, none whatsoever. Ukraine is dying out because it's so poor and people just don't want children.

And certainly, the hypothesis that radiation is responsible for low fertility rate is falsified by the fact that fertility is low throughout the whole Ukraine, even the parts which were not affected at all.

Oh, and I did mention that I live in the Ukraine?

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way. But what you wrote is disgusting in every possible way. You should really be ashamed...

For telling the truth?

It's surely much easier to keep telling that nuclear is bad without even considering consequences of your decisions.