FWIS3

I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning, while I was listening to my "No Nukes" CD (no matter your politics, it is good music).

And one side note - I hate the term "Environmental Movement" because it implies a unity of goals, means, and purpose that do not exist among the many environmental groups, but it will have to do.

During the 70s and 80s particularly, there was a very strong, very public campaign against nuclear power. This was particularly true after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. And it was largely successful, as it pretty much stopped the development of nuclear power, even better/safer designs of nuclear power, and stopped the expansion of its use. It also left the public fairly solidly against it, or at least not thinking good thoughts about it (IMO).

The post-Fukushima "panic" has given us another wave of this withdrawal from nuclear power, though this time more in Japan and Europe.

Fast-forward to now. We are facing a global disaster from Global Warming / Climate Change. I don't think the vast majority of people on Earth realize how profoundly this will effect the lives of our descendants for the next several hundred years. I'm not saying we're all going to die, but this will be a very different Earth than we grew up with. Humans are just not very good at recognizing disasters that take decades to develop.

And frankly, we are not going to fix this, or even slow it down much. We've had a couple of decades to do something (the first meetings to create the Kyoto Protocol were in 1992 and the broad outlines were completed in 1997, with the first countries ratifying it in 2002) and it is quite obvious that we will fall short as a species.

Would this have been different with nuclear power? I'm not saying nuclear power is trouble-free (frankly, I think proliferation is the biggest issue, not accidents or waste), but it is the only carbon-free power technology that is fully developed, could be implemented fairly quickly, and supply a lot of the world's power needs. But the Environmental Movement's tapping into people's fears have pretty much killed that. And that "tapping" was based almost wholly on emotions and fear, not science.

It is obviously harder to tap into fear for Climate Change (see long time-lines noted above), and I'm not sure the EM has really tried all that hard (remember the Super Global Concert to End Global Warming, that was simulcast globally from the venues in New York, LA, Tokyo, and Paris, and raised $147 million? - no? - maybe because it never happened).

Anyway, there is no particular point to this post, other than to let this random thought escape from my brain....

The law of unintended consequences...

SciFi Chick wrote:The law of unintended consequences...

Actually, I consider it much worse than that. This is not a sin of omission, this is a sin of commission.

First, the Environmental Movement (EM) has not modified their position based on new information. Maybe in 1984, the danger of nuclear power seemed like the worst problem. But that was 30 years ago. We should know now that Climate Change is a much bigger problem and we should know the consequences of nuclear accidents. Yet, as a whole, the EM is as anti-nuke as ever. Its not even like they are saying "well, the old Light-water-moderated reactors are a bad design and we are advocating research into safer designs like Pebble Reactors".

They also should know how the real world progress and consequences of the alternatives they advocate (energy conservation, solar, wind) are going, the real limitations of these technologies, and should realize that these aren't panaceas and that they aren't going to magically fix everything, even if we had the political will to implement them.

Second, as I said, the position of the EM is, for the most part, not based on science and logic, but emotion. It is not like this position was carefully thought out, based on the best available data, but we just didn't know or we didn't have the data. Again, that might have been somewhat true 30 years ago, but it isn't true now.

Several people (Jon Stewart for one) have pointed out that both the Political Left and the Political Right suffer from anti-science forces. Currently in the US, the Political Right demonstrates this with anti-AGW and the Political Left with anti-vaxers and anti-nuclear (among other examples for both).

If you are not even using science to try to make decisions about scientific topics, then you don't get to use the excuse "unintended consequences", IMO.

Hey swift, remember that poster at BABB who used Wolfgang Pauli's quote "it's not even wrong" as a signature? I think it would describe the current situation appropriately

Going nuke would have simply delayed the inevitable. Probably not by much either.
There are plenty of places that run hydro for example and nuclear to make a difference would mean reactors everywhere which couldn't have been done safely so fast to make a difference. What we'd have instead is global warming and many nuclear power stations failing because they were rushed through.

Actually, I think I have kind of an interesting perspective on this: A little more than 50% of Ontario's electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. We were building new plants up through the 90s. Hell, we have the second largest nuclear power station, by generating capacity, in the world. The environmental movement didn't stop nuclear from going forward, here. So we're a good test case if you want to see what it would look like if nuclear went forward elsewhere.

The upshot? There are pros and cons.

Pro: We just closed the last of our coal plants this year; we are the only jurisdiction in North America to have done so.
Con: Cost. The last plant we built ran way over budget. And we've been trying to refurb some reactors for years, but the costs are monstrous.

Which says to me that, yes, Swift is entirely right to say that global warming has been badly exacerbated by the lack of nuclear power generation worldwide. Coal's bad, guys. On the other hand, given the horrendous costs of the things, would they have been built had there been no environmental pushback against them? Coal's also real cheap, guys.

So, I don't know. My instinct is that, had there been no objections from the environmental movement, there would be more nuclear, sure; it would be a help - a big help - but not as much of a help as we might like, I don't think.

(Also, there are issues of reactor design. Canadian reactors are very different from American ones. Less likely to go "pop," but also more costly - and both are a lot better than the terrifying clunkers the Soviets were building. If there had been more reactors out there, would there have been more serious accidents? Could be. Is that better or worse than global warming? Depends. 'Course, with newer designs, the risk of accidents is vastly reduced... but then we get back to cost. Decommissioning a reactor built in 1971 and building a modern one is expensive. That's why the Fukushima reactors were so outdated, but still in use. It's why reactors keep getting their operating licenses extended way past their planned retirement. And it's why Ontario wants to refurb previously decommissioned reactors rather than build new ones. There are a lot of "what ifs," is what I'm saying.)

(Oh, and if we're doing alternate nuclear history, it's not just the environmentalists to blame - it's the folks who decided they needed atom bombs. You want those, you need uranium or plutonium. So you build uranium reactors, and that's what we end up with in nuclear power plants, because that's what the infrastructure is built for and that's where the expertise is. If they had wanted power generation alone, they could have gone with thorium reactors, which give you the benefits of uranium reactors without the, er, things that environmentalists complain about. Missed opportunity, that.)

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Actually, I think I have kind of an interesting perspective on this: A little more than 50% of Ontario's electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. We were building new plants up through the 90s. Hell, we have the second largest nuclear power station, by generating capacity, in the world. The environmental movement didn't stop nuclear from going forward, here. So we're a good test case if you want to see what it would look like if nuclear went forward elsewhere.

I didn't know any of that. And congrats. I wish we were that rational.

So, I don't know. My instinct is that, had there been no objections from the environmental movement, there would be more nuclear, sure; it would be a help - a big help - but not as much of a help as we might like, I don't think.

I've said for at least a decade that, IMO, there is no single solution for global warming; nuclear power or anything else. Only a multi-pronged approach would have any hope of managing it. But, as you say, I think nuclear would have been a big help.

(Oh, and if we're doing alternate nuclear history, it's not just the environmentalists to blame - it's the folks who decided they needed atom bombs. You want those, you need uranium or plutonium. So you build uranium reactors, and that's what we end up with in nuclear power plants, because that's what the infrastructure is built for and that's where the expertise is. If they had wanted power generation alone, they could have gone with thorium reactors, which give you the benefits of uranium reactors without the, er, things that environmentalists complain about. Missed opportunity, that.)

An interesting idea, but that's too far from the timeline I'm familiar with to wrap my brain around in a meaningful way.

I also have some stupid hope that what I'm complaining about could still change (environmental groups stop opposing nuclear power) and it could make a little difference yet. The genie you're talking about left the bottle way too long ago to be put back in.

Couple thought:

1. Yes. No Nukes is good music. I bought a copy a long time ago, maybe when I attended the first No Nukes rally at Three Mile Island (while I was working at Three Mile Island).

2. The life extension with western reactors is not entirely (or even mostly) about economics. The reactor vessels are the limiting component in the design and we didn't have enough data to confidently say they would last after more than 40 years of neutron bombardment. Tests* at each reactor site have shown the designs are conservative and the vessels are good for another 20 years. So, after updating some systems and re-doing all the safety analyses, extensions are being granted. That is, of course, an economic decision, but it's no different than with any other large piece of infrastructure. Would you replace a dam before it's useful life was over?

* each vessel has sacrificial pieces of vessel steel inside which are periodically withdrawn during refueling to be analyzed for steel embrittlement and other flaws.

3. Few things make me madder than environmentalists who reject science. My local neighborhood rag had an article by someone who started an anti-nuke group 37 years ago railing about the new Georgia Power reactors being built. But Georgia Power/Southern Company also has a love affair with huge coal plants, something organizations like Greenlaw are fighting, sometimes successfully. Taken together, the goals of these semi-aligned groups would effectively bring Georgia back to the pre-industrial revolution days. It's as if they think natural gas will solve all power production issues without harm to the environment.

geonuc wrote:It's as if they think natural gas will solve all power production issues without harm to the environment.

Except they are also blindly opposing fracking, whether it is being done properly or stupidly, and fracking is what gives us cheap natural gas.

Swift wrote:

geonuc wrote:It's as if they think natural gas will solve all power production issues without harm to the environment.

Except they are also blindly opposing fracking, whether it is being done properly or stupidly, and fracking is what gives us cheap natural gas.

Yes, forgot about that.

The science was pretty well there in the 1970's that nuclear power could be used safely and with far less environmental impact than oil and coal. The "environmentalists" and the "everyone should kneel down and die before making war with nukes" crowd scared everyone spitless about the dangers of all the little children glowing in the dark.

Of course, none of them will take the blame for being part of the problem instead of part of the solution. After all if we had embraced solar power and covered Arizona in solar panels by now we wouldn't have an energy problem.

Never mind that the carbon foot print was almost as big or bigger than coal because of how we have to make solar panels. Oh, wait. they are making them in China so it's OK. China is too far away for it to affect us or have anything to do with global warming.

SciFiFisher wrote:Never mind that the carbon foot print was almost as big or bigger than coal because of how we have to make solar panels. Oh, wait. they are making them in China so it's OK. China is too far away for it to affect us or have anything to do with global warming.

That's actually not correct. Making electric solar panels has a high carbon foot print.
Making Thermoelectric does not.
You can make a solar farm by heating a fluid beyond 100DegC then generating electricity via steam with a very small carbon foot print.

FZR1KG wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:Never mind that the carbon foot print was almost as big or bigger than coal because of how we have to make solar panels. Oh, wait. they are making them in China so it's OK. China is too far away for it to affect us or have anything to do with global warming.

That's actually not correct. Making electric solar panels has a high carbon foot print.
Making Thermoelectric does not.
You can make a solar farm by heating a fluid beyond 100DegC then generating electricity via steam with a very small carbon foot print.

Yes, but the proponents I am speaking of actually want (or wanted) to solve our energy problem by using solar panel farms in the "unpopulated" high sunshine areas of the country. i.e. Arizona and other parts of the southwest and west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_farm

SciFiFisher wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:Never mind that the carbon foot print was almost as big or bigger than coal because of how we have to make solar panels. Oh, wait. they are making them in China so it's OK. China is too far away for it to affect us or have anything to do with global warming.

That's actually not correct. Making electric solar panels has a high carbon foot print.
Making Thermoelectric does not.
You can make a solar farm by heating a fluid beyond 100DegC then generating electricity via steam with a very small carbon foot print.

Yes, but the proponents I am speaking of actually want (or wanted) to solve our energy problem by using solar panel farms in the "unpopulated" high sunshine areas of the country. i.e. Arizona and other parts of the southwest and west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_farm

With photovoltaic technology or another?
If it's the latter it would reduce small towns need for electricity which would make a big difference.

I'll hijack my own thread for a thought that has been developing in my head the last couple of days...

This downturn in oil prices, if it lasts for any significant period of time, will be the death blow for preventing climate change.

Oil at $50/barrel or so will make any alternatives completely uneconomical: wind, solar, nuclear, liquid fuels from renewables, even natural gas from fracking will struggle. Which is almost certainly what the Saudis have in mind.

Forget trying to sell Priuses and other hybrids, it will kill that market and drive (pun intended) everyone back to gas guzzlers.

More than anything the environmental community has done in the US, this will kill the tar sands and the Keystone pipeline. But before they start to party, they should remember that Keystone going through would, for all practical purposes, have no effect on climate change, but killing all the alternatives will certainly.

Good thing they picked Keystone as their battle, and not something that would have made an actual difference, like a carbon tax.

So use your $2/gallon gas to drive to the zoo and see the polar bears (and half the other species there) - they'll be gone soon from the wild.

Yeah, the impending decommissioning of an operational nuclear plant because of low natural gas prices had me thinking the same thing. The image I have in my mind is of a polar bear balancing on tiny chunk of ice.

Maybe, however OPEC is betting the price of oil will drop below the cost to keep Shale Oil sustainable, so maybe the boom won't last that long.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much it's lower oil prices now in part just to destabilize Russia, considering how quickly the tables have turned for them.

That said, I'm now considering finally visiting St. Petersburg this spring seeing as it's so damn cheap now!

From what I understand, listening to various reports, it’s mostly to undercut Iraq. OPEC nations can afford to sell cheap, because they have massive amounts of money. Iraq, on the other hand, doesn’t. Selling out Russia is just a happy side benefit....

Iran isn't too happy either....Not to mention...... Venezuela.....

I decided to hijack my own thread with another global warming thought....

A lot of climate change deniers like to claim that the whole climate change / global warming "thing" is just a hoax perpetrated by climate researchers as a way to get money out of the government (as if the appearance of a motive is evidence of a conspiracy, a favorite tactic of moon-landing hoax believers too).

Anyway, as I was looking through the New Issue Alert e-mail for the journal "BioEnergy Research" (volume 8, issue 3), which, as usual, is full of research into converting renewable plant materials to liquid fuels, a thought came to me. If there is any group of researchers who have probably profited the most from global warming, it is not climate researchers, who would probably be doing the same thing whether the climate was getting colder or warming or not changing. The people who are really "profiting" from it are the people who are researching solutions to the problem, whether it is alternative energy, carbon capture, geoengineering, etc. There has to be a dozen of those researchers, across academia, government, and industry (myself partially included) for every climatologist.

So that makes the supposed conspiracy even that much more improbable. Somehow all these "solution" researchers convinced all the climate researchers to fake this global warming, so they could profit from the fraud.

You're just a tool of the machine. Why should we listen to you?

(but good point!)

geonuc wrote:You're just a tool of the machine.

Can I pick which tool I am... can I? I want to be a crescent wrench... everyone like crescent wrenches!

Swift wrote:

geonuc wrote:You're just a tool of the machine.

Can I pick which tool I am... can I? I want to be a crescent wrench... everyone like crescent wrenches!

I don't. I have always referred to them as 'knuckle busters' given their tendency to slip off of the nut. I much prefer a proper fitting box or open end wrench.

you could always be a lug wrench. They have many purposes.