Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Is Japan’s nuclear-free pathway an environmentally friendly choice?

On 14 September 2012, the Japanese Government considered a new policy that excited many self-proclaimed environmentalists and anti-nuclear power protestors. Following intense political wrangling, they…

In the aftermath of the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, Japan is phasing out nuclear power. EPA/Julien Warnand

On 14 September 2012, the Japanese Government considered a new policy that excited many self-proclaimed environmentalists and anti-nuclear power protestors. Following intense political wrangling, they proposed phasing out the use of nuclear power in Japan by 2040, replacing it with renewable energy (and fossil fuels). This decision, if carried through, has important environmental and financial implications that may come as a surprise to many.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on 11 Mar 2011, caused by an earthquake-triggered tsunami, consigned the established Japanese electricity-generation plan to the dustbin. Along with it went Japan’s Kyoto-protocol commitments for greenhouse-gas mitigation.

Originally, the Japanese government had planned to increase nuclear power to 45% and renewables (including hydro) to 20% by the year 2030, up from 26% and 10% respectively in 2010. After the accident, the National Policy Unit in Japan hinted that the original plan was likely to be scrapped in favour of a new scenario, whereby the nuclear target was to be reduced to somewhere between 0–35% and the renewables target increased to 20–30%. Even with an increased share of renewables, the shift away from nuclear under any of the proposed scenarios will lead to greater use of fossil fuels.

The Fukushima disaster sparked protests and prompted a move away from nuclear energy for Japan SandoCap

To compare the proposed options fairly, we argue that it makes sense take a holistic view of their relative sustainability. To do this, we need to account for a range of environmental and socio-economic factors, including greenhouse-gas emissions, water consumption, land transformation, health and safety issues, and cost of electricity. One should use an evidence-based auditing method like multi-criteria decision-making analysis (MCDMA), which is transparent and relatively objective.

Our recent research (currently submitted to the journal Energy) uses MCDMA to show that even when the negative consequences of using nuclear power are properly factored in (and costs assigned to waste management, accident consequences, and so on), those scenarios with reduced nuclear power result in a less sustainable future in Japan.

In particular, the greenhouse-gas emissions of the nuclear-free scenario can reach up to about 430kg per megawatt hour. By comparison, in the 35% nuclear-power scenario, it is only 267kg per megawatt hour, in spite of the higher renewable energy share of the former. Except for the differing nuclear capacity, in all scenarios the ratio of coal to gas power had the largest influence on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Unfortunately, a high dependency on renewables without ongoing support for nuclear in Japan cannot cut the electricity generation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions unless some currently undeveloped alternative forms of cheap, large-scale energy storage are deployed in the future.

Nuclear power is a zero-carbon energy technology Michael Kappel

Efforts to increase the penetration of renewable energy in Japan are obviously a better pathway than a fossil-fuel-only future. However, Japan must face a number of realities.

It is not possible to supply 100% of Japan’s current electricity consumption using renewable energy, due to physical limits of generation on the densely populated island nation. As such, the nuclear-free scenario aims to replace a massive “greenhouse-gas free” energy source (nuclear), with other forms of zero-carbon energy sources (renewables). It does not seek to mitigate or displace dependence on coal, natural gas and oil.

The consequences of this choice are, obviously, losing the battle against global climate change. This is more serious than any known nuclear-power-related issues, such as waste management or accidental releases of radioactive material.

We all must understand that there is no “silver bullet” energy source which can solve all problems perfectly without any negative impacts to society and the environment. Trade-offs are, like death and taxes, inevitable.

Some examples:

  • The life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of photovoltaic power are higher than nuclear power.

  • According to RenewableUK, in United Kingdom, there had been about 1,500 wind-power-related accidents and four fatalities during 2007–2011.

  • Manufacture of photovoltaic cells uses a mix of toxic chemicals.

  • Wind turbines and solar thermal plants use relatively large amounts of concrete and steel per unit of electricity.

  • Hydro requires massive land transformation.

  • Intermittent renewable energy sources typically rely on natural-gas backup.

The Japanese government’s original plans for nuclear energy to provide 45% of their total power by 2030 have been abolished. IAEA Imagebank

Moreover, most countries are not able to supply 100% of their own electricity consumption from renewables due to physical limits (such as usable land that is not already dedicated to human use or for nature reserves). For instance, our Energy paper shows that Japan can theoretically meet 20–30% of their electricity consumption using non-hydro renewables. Although some countries are able to achieve a 100% renewable-powered electricity network (for example, Norway or Iceland; they both have plentiful hydro and/or near-surface geothermal resources), other forms of energy must be supplied, for heating, domestic-vehicle fuels, shipping and aviation, and industrial processes.

Even with major improvements in energy efficiency, we will need much more future electricity to manufacture synthetic fuels to replace the currently dominant role of mined liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.

These comparisons do not mean that renewable energy is worthless, or that nuclear power is the only option. But they do illustrate the risks posed by arbitrarily closing off technology options.

To achieve a sustainable electricity network, the inherent trade-offs and workability of the whole system – now and into the future – need to be carefully balanced. Choosing one or two renewables might be helpful to reduce greenhouse gas emissions somewhat. But substituting renewables for existing and proposed nuclear, while also allowing dependence on fossil fuels to increase rather than diminish, as Japan now proposes, is irresponsible from an environmental and energy-security perspective.

Recognising this reality, talk is already emerging that the zero-nuclear policy may be shelved.

Climate change and its many consequences are arguably the greatest environmental threat facing humanity this century. Fossil-fuel combustion for electricity production is a major cause of the buildup of greenhouse gases, and its use must be mitigated heavily and eventually eliminated.

Nuclear fission, an abundant and zero-carbon energy technology, has an enormous potential to supply reliable baseload electricity and displace coal and gas power plants directly. Energy plans that expand the role of both nuclear and renewables make sense.

Policies that result in a swap of nuclear for coal and gas, and so increase emissions intensity, put us on the road to disaster.

Join the conversation

189 Comments sorted by

  1. Chris Harries

    logged in via Facebook

    So long as industrial society's primary focus is to meet energy demand, no matter what, then Professor Brook's premise is basically correct – renewables alone can't hope to fuel the ever-growing global industrial economy.

    But then again, energy is just the first of many resources constraints on a non sustainable ever growing economy. Plug one hole then others come to the surface.

    The energy supply debate needs to always be matched with a demand side policy agenda. Only after significantly curtailing our energy gluttony should we be championing how to optimally deliver energy for our real needs.

    Interesting that the professor, a long advocate of emerging safer nuclear technologies, did not mention these potential newer technologies, I suppose because Japan's existing nuclear infrastructure is already there in the form of older style fission plants that frighten the hell out of people – understandably in the case of Japan..

    report
    1. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Chris Harries

      Study after study has shown that wind alone can meet all our electric needs, solar alone can do it, and a combination of technologies certainly accomplishes more than enough electric output. Nuclear power is not required, or desired. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002169

      http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/article/the-sky-is-the-limit-for-wind-20120913

      http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

      report
    2. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to aligatorhardt

      Unfortunately, Gator, those links are of simulations or "windmills in the sky" ideas that have no foundation in reality.

      The Chinese have already sensed reality for their massive wind installations, and it's not just high maintenance and 24/7 loss, it's the unhappy reality that climate change softens winds in many locales, including western China. For example...
      http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
      www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

      That's…

      Read more
  2. Zvyozdochka

    logged in via Twitter

    The Japanese Environment Ministry in a 2009 report claimed there was ~20GW of easily accessible conventional geothermal power which they're now pressing ahead with. It's also a perfect compliment to wind/solar.

    I think the claims of long-term increasing fossil fuel use will prove to be fossil-nuke scaremongering.

    report
  3. Garry Claridge

    Systems Analyst

    MCDMA is only as good as the criteria used and their relative weightings. If this process is done in an open and widely engaging manner, then the decision recommendations will have greater accuracy.

    report
  4. jim green

    friends of the earth campaigner

    Anyone else spot the elephant in the article? The authors are silent on the greatest hazard associated with nuclear power -- its repeatedly-demonstrated contribution to WMD proliferation. Ignoring that problem makes as much (or as little) sense as assessing coal while ignoring its contribution to climate change.

    report
    1. Tom Keen

      PhD Candidate; Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.

      In reply to jim green

      Jim Green is a paid anti-nuclear professional. It is his job to make unsubstantiated claims like this. Notice the absence of any examples of this "repeatedly-demonstrated contribution to WMD proliferation". Japan has had nuclear power since 1966, and has never produced a nuclear weapon. His comment is a deliberate distraction from the main point in this article - that is, the rise of fossil fuels in Japan.

      report
    2. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Sanghyun Hong

      So Sanghyun. Are you only proposing Nuclear as a non carbon solution for Japan?

      CO2 emissions are a global problem.

      What about other countries that are currently non-nuclear ?
      Iran for example - do you reckon Israel and America are over reacting?

      What about Egypt, the largest country in the M-E.

      Here is a list of countries that World Nuclear Association are considering nuclear power...
      Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Syria etc.
      http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.html

      Cannot see any problems there?

      report
    3. Sanghyun Hong

      PhD Student, Sustainable energy network planning & analysis at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Definitely, I can see the problem, but nuclear power is not nuclear weapon. The relationship b/t nuclear weapon and nuclear power might be similar to the relationship between car and tank, for example. Increasing number of cars does not mean increasing number of tanks, even though those are basically the same machine, except one is for war and another is for commuting or travel.

      The problem what you've mentioned is the problem of nuclear weapon - I'm totally against it -, but it is not the problem of nuclear power. Even without any single nuclear power plant, a country can make nuclear weapon. In contrast, many countries with nuclear power do not have nuclear weapon.

      report
    4. Graham Palmer

      Industrial engineer

      In reply to jim green

      Proliferation is a legitimate issue, but how would the relative expansion or contraction of Japan's civilian nuclear power generation make any tangible difference to the potentially deliberate, long-term and costly decision to pursue nuclear arms. Japan's entry into WW2 was accelerated by the embargos on its oil supply and the threats to its energy security. An energy-secure Japan represents a far greater assurance of Pacific stability than a country requiring just-in-time shipments of LNG through the eastern Pacific.

      report
    5. Luke Weston

      Physicist / electronic engineer

      In reply to jim green

      Jim, I can't help but notice that there seems to be a complete lack of any kind of evidence or any kind of science - any kind of substance to build a credible argument on - in your post.

      report
    6. Brett Burgess

      Engineering Manager

      In reply to jim green

      Jim, there's is a big problem with calling power plant Plutonium "weapon's grade". About a third of the Plutonium made in power plant reactors is not the Pu-239 used to make bombs! A third of the Plutonium (P-240) won't work in bombs!

      Two isotopes of Plutonium are being formed in power plant reactors, Pu-239 and Pu-240. Pu-240 atoms naturally experience two additional neutron absorptions and become Pu-242, which radioactively decays by Alpha emission and becomes U-238. Back to square one, if you…

      Read more
    7. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to jim green

      Proliferation is not limited by the availability of uranium.

      http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1629_web.pdf

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=worldwide+uranium+mines&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_uranium_mines

      And we know how to extract uranium from ocean water.

      http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200704/000020070407A0057435.php
      "Cost Estimation of Uranium Recovery from Seawater with System of Braid Type Adsorbent"

      One country that has the bomb doesn't have its own uranium mine, and that is Israel. But Israel could now get uranium from sea water.

      report
    8. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike: "see any problems" with >12,000 US deaths/year from coal burning? Maybe from refinery explosions -- Venezuelans recently died that way? What about gas transmission -- we just lost 30 folks in the US from such an explosion and 8 neighbors up here near SF a couple of years ago?

      No matter how you try to lay dangers on nuclear power, the reality is that anyone operating a nuke takes it seriously, any western regulator takes it seriously, and the international regulator not only takes it seriously, they encourage contracts such as fuel "rental" -- don't even have to return the rental with a full tank.
      ;]
      Anyone wanting fissile material for weapons now has an easier time of it, independent of the present nuclear industry -- laser enrichment (even in your back room).

      report
    9. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Coal will also be replaced by renewable energy. That is the comparison to nuclear power, not coal. Defend nuclear power on it's own merits, or agree it is indefensible.

      report
    10. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to aligatorhardt

      Nuclear power has always been so clear a winner that the combustion industry has loved, and even depended upon, naive folks to inadvertently support them. The combustion folks love what you're doing right now, Gator.

      But, maybe if you had the gumption to use a real name, folks might take your misinformation more seriously.

      Don't do that!
      ;]

      report
    11. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike Hansen: 32 countries have nuclear power. 9 have the bomb.
      Iran's intention to make a bomb became obvious when they enriched beyond 20%. No reactor requires more enrichment than 20%. Bombs require 90% enrichment.
      Iran's iatola supreme leader vowed to start a nuclear war.

      report
    12. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Just a note, current reactor fuel is enriched to about 5% in U235, since that's adequate to run in a water-moderated core.

      Also, the reason we have so much waste from these reactors (LWRs) is that their solid oxide fuel cannot stay in the reactor for more than about 5 years, at which point it has built up undesired internal gasses, etc. and even developed fuel voids/cracks. We thus create "spent fuel" stores, which in fact still have about 1/2 the useful fission fuel that we originally put in.

      That's the motive for recycling the fuel elements via reprocessing, and it's the reason moving to the liquid-salt fuel cycle was demonstrated decades ago to eliminate most waste.

      Fortunately, we're going back there in many places around the world and will even be able to consume what now sits around in spent-fuel storage. There's enough 'spent' fuel now to run all the world's reactors for decades.

      report
  5. Mark O'Connor

    Author

    It's true Japan is in a no-win situation: 123 million people, with quite high life-style expectations, on a group of mountainous islands that could not provide food or energy for half that number.

    Japan's besetting problem for 100 years has been over-population. All attempts to solve this problem -- seizing colonies like Manchuria with rich resources, attacking the USA and attempting to conquer the Pacific, trying to trade their way to success in the era of cheap Middle-Eastern oil, and going…

    Read more
    1. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Mark O'Connor

      See:
      "Ecological Footprints and Bio-Capacity: Essential Elements in Sustainability Assessment"  by William E. Rees, PhD, University of British Columbia and "Living Planet Report 2008" also by Rees.

      We went past the Earth's permanent carrying capacity for humans some time in the 1980s.   We are 20%+ over our limit already.   And the US no longer has excess biocapacity.   We are feeding on imports. 4 Billion people will die because we are 2 Billion over the carrying capacity. An overshoot…

      Read more
    2. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Mark O'Connor

      "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.

      Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production. Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source, including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

      Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt…

      Read more
  6. Mike Hansen

    Mr.

    Anyone advocating the continuation of nuclear power in Japan cannot ignore the report of the The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.

    Here a few of the relevant quotes from the summary
    http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NAIIC_report_lo_res10.pdf

    "THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI of March 11, 2011 were natural disasters of a magnitude that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi…

    Read more
  7. Elizabeth Raine

    logged in via Facebook

    What about disposal of nuclear waste? Can that ever be done safely?

    report
    1. Chris Harries

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Elizabeth Raine

      Elizabeth,

      There is actually hope on that front if new technology proves itself, particularly what are called Generation 4 reactors that would eat up existing waste. That's still a big IF though, relies on commercial breakthroughs.

      Believe it or not, Japan needs the output of at least one of its nuclear power plants just to provide energy its ubiquitous, energy guzzling vending machines! The good side to what's happened in Japan is that nation is being forced to take a hard look at its energy consumption and how to terms with the price that has to be paid for it.

      report
    2. Luke Weston

      Physicist / electronic engineer

      In reply to Elizabeth Raine

      Has "nuclear waste" (or used nuclear fuel) ever injured or hurt anybody, in all the history of nuclear engineering in all the world?

      report
    3. Tom Keen

      PhD Candidate; Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Luke's question was asking whether radioactive waste has ever harmed anyone. As far as I'm aware, the only incidents involving waste that have harmed people were the Kyshtym Disaster in 1957 (in an industrial reprocessing accident) and the Goiânia accident in 1987 (from a medical radiotherapy source taken from an abandoned hospital).

      If you want to reduce public exposure to radiation, start with coal - it emits over a hundred times more radiation into the environment than nuclear does http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

      And today's stockpiles of nuclear 'waste' are fuel in tomorrow's reactors: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet.html . Which is precisely what GE-Hitachi are proposing to start in the UK soon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/nuclear-waste-burning-reactor . Nuclear waste problem = solved (however severe that problem actually was).

      report
    4. Luke Weston

      Physicist / electronic engineer

      In reply to Tom Keen

      True. And those two incidents you mention involved (a) a chemical explosion in mixed waste from crude Soviet-era processing of irradiated uranium targets for military plutonium production and (b) a medical radiotherapy source, respectively.

      We don't have activists calling for medical radiotherapy to be banned because of the Goiânia accident, do we?

      Of course, neither accident is relevant to the storage or processing of used nuclear fuels from power reactors. Since used nuclear fuel from power reactors has been handled and stored around the world for 60 years and it has never hurt anybody, it seems like a strange question to ask whether that "can be done safely".

      report
    5. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Tom Keen

      Luke Weston Tom Keene

      Why did you not comment on the video?
      Because Nuclear waste is damaging people right now. Quoting vested interest 'data' form militarised nuclear industry does you no service.

      report
    6. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Luke Weston

      Right, and as Tom said, coal plants emit far more radiation than any nuke power or processing plant is allowed.

      Why? Beauce, in the US, we have lobbyists and thus the NORM Exemption for all combustion plants.

      Normally Occurring Radioactive Materials -- what you get when you burn/vaporize rock, which is the majority of mined coal, only reduced partly before burning in a power plant.

      Do our plants have SOx limits, but none for Mercury (yet), Arsenic, Polonium, Radium, Radon, Uranium, etc.

      Breathe deeply near a nuke -- fine. Don't try it downwind of a combustion plant, not even if they burn biomass, which contains Potassium40, Polonium...

      What's actually 'green' has yet to be learned by many "greens".
      ;]

      report
    7. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Luke Weston

      Luke Weston said " .... conveniently avoids the true accounting" what utter rubbish, every nuclear scientist and physicist knows in order to truly make 'storage' of nuclear waste require more funding than the subsidised industry can afford. Because the cost of burying in nuclear waste needs to go so deep it is just unviable.
      The truth is there literally has been a government that has lasted as long as the storage plans that are needed to care for the half life of nuclear waste. Is this a realistic basis for long term storage?

      report
    8. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Not sure I get the words, Paul.

      The whole point of the R&D done in the 1960s was to eliminate most all waste and be able to use existing 'waste' for fuel.

      Only 1/2 of the fissile Uranium isotope enriched into ~5% of the fuel for light-water reactors (LWRs) is actually used before the fuel must be removed.

      In addition, that fuel is ~95% Uranium 238, which can be directly used in the breeder reactors intended to supplant LWRs in the decades ago by the Kennedy-Seaborg plan. http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

      There's precious little "waste" in nuclear power done right. And, there's a great deal of value in it -- medical/industrial isotopes, spacecraft power isotopes, etc. A nuke typically makes ~$600,000,000 of juice per year and another hundred $ million or so of isotopes used for everything from smoke detectors to cancer treatments..

      report
    9. Tom Keen

      PhD Candidate; Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.

      In reply to Paul Richards

      What industry data? None of the links I gave was to industry sources. Why make false claims?

      I didn't watch the video because it's 98 minutes long, it's not original scientific research, and I suspect it doesn't put any risks into context with the risks from other power sources.

      Nuclear energy is empirically the safest source of energy we have. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html That's based on ExternE (European Union) data, World Health Organisation data, and occupational health and safety statistics.

      report
    10. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Tom Keen said; " What industry data? None of the links I gave was to industry sources. Why make false claims? "

      Tom Keen said; "video because it's 98 minutes long, it's not original scientific research" Well this might be a revelation to you but the rest of us understand this principle "Documentaries are based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality."

      Heads up Tom "The Guardian has been pro-nuclear" for many years, "The Scientific American" takes advertising and articles routinely produced by the pro nuclear industry, the third organisation is a well known pro nuclear nuclear lobby group or what is called a conservative 'think tank'.

      Then you put up a blog 'nextbigfuture' another biased source, that is a known conservative 'think tank'.
      Please show some due diligence if your opinions and research is going to have credibility.

      report
    11. Luke Weston

      Physicist / electronic engineer

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Well, you know, we could try published, peer-reviewed scientific research as a starting point for a scientifically credible conversation, instead of, say, a YouTube movie.

      After watching the moving for five minutes, it is, well, entertaining.

      To paraphrase... "We set out on a worldwide journey, to investigate what radioactive waste is, where it comes from and how it is managed... to start, we came here, to the headquarters of Greenpeace."

      Yeah, it's sounding very credible and scientifically respectable so far.

      report
    12. Tom Keen

      PhD Candidate; Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.

      In reply to Paul Richards

      And you still won't acknowledge that I *did not* link to industry data. It's simple, all you need to do is say, "Okay, I acknowledge that you didn't link to industry data, but I think your arguments are wrong because...", and then actually answer the arguments, and not simply attack the sources - this is blatant ad hominem argument.

      The Guardian article is about GE-Hitachi's plans to build a commercial Generation IV fast breeder reactor. No industry data in that. The Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger…

      Read more
    13. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Elizabeth Raine

      There are 2 options for spent nuclear fuel.   It is clearly NOT "waste."   
      1.  Recycle.   France recycles fuel now.   We recycled fuel in the old days.   We could have our fuel recycled in France.
      http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
      The newspaper makes the usual errors, such as calling spent reactor fuel "weapons grade" which it certainly was not.   
      We don't recycle nuclear fuel because it is valuable and people steal it.   The place…

      Read more
    14. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Elizabeth Raine

      There is no such thing as "nuclear waste." It is spent fuel that needs to be recycled. France, Japan and Russia recycle fuel now. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because it is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel.

      [I almost took a job there in 1968, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker…

      Read more
    15. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Clarification: You do not get Pu239 directly from spent fuel. First you recycle the fuel then you put it in a special Pu239 making reactor.

      report
    16. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Typical, spent fuel contains about 1% U235 and about 1% Pu, which is a mix of isotopes 239, 240 & 241. It's called "reactor Pu" by some, to distinguish from weapons Pu.

      The presence of 239 & 241 is good for future fuel, or weapons, but Pu240 self fissions often enough that only a tiny amount ruins a bomb-maker's day. Poof.
      ;]

      report
    17. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, you really get the laughs with you boogeyman "militarised nuclear industry" fluff!

      All you do is show you understand neither and don't have any nuclear science or engineering to boot.

      report
    18. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Chris Harries

      There have been far too many false promises from the nuclear power industry for us to rely on promises of unproven theoretical solutions to the issue of nuclear waste. Renewable energy is proven and effective at offsetting global warming emissions. After 60 years of nuclear waste piling up, the time for promises is over, and with no definite solution, the production of waste must stop.

      report
    19. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Luke Weston

      It is hard to imagine why an industry that claims no bad health effects has spent $7 billion dollars for proven health damages to employees, numbering 87,000 claimants, and still has many more who have been unable to fulfill the burden of proof that victims must accomplish in order to file a claim. Then we must also look at the damages from uranium mining, and the cancer epidemic that has plagued society since nuclear power has been in use. When defending the safety record of nuclear power , distracting us with coal damages is not a defense, it is a distraction in order to avoid the answer. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/27/national/main20112345.shtml

      report
    20. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to aligatorhardt

      Gator, you really need to get honest, not just about your wimpy name -- the link talks about things like a "nuclear weapons plant in Miamisburg, Ohio" -- that's not nuclear power.

      If you want an hoest discussion of issues, be honest.

      The facts, though, even if thousands have been sick and dies over the 50+ years of civilian nuclear power, are that combustion has killed and injured many times more. We in the US lose >12.000 lives/year just from coal emissions. If you want to hoenstly count all the mining and processing deaths for fuels and resources, you'll find that nuclear power's contributions are teeny. But you don't want facts, do you?
      ;]
      The 1998 Swiss report on all power forms ranked nuclear as safest, even when Chernobyl was included, despite being irrelevant

      Let's see how much you actually known about the nuclear power you so vehemently reject -- why is Chernobyl irrelevant to non-Soviet nuclear power?

      One sentence is all we need, Gator.

      report
    21. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to aligatorhardt

      Name some promises, Gator.

      But, as you want to display your ignorance of the subject, present nuclear fuel "waste" isn't waste at all. It's as valuable as it was when new, to power the new Generation-IV plants.

      And, should you ever need a serious medical scan or radiological treatment, will you say "no"?
      ;]

      report
    22. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Tom Keen

      Tom Keen said " Nuclear energy is empirically the safest source of energy we have"

      I had not bothered to put any of the data up, because it is not really that difficult to find. However after repeated challenges here particularly Alex "Banana Man" Cannara's last, it is only fair to post this for you.
      Knowing cognitive bias plays a part in 'all' our data gathering, I trust you will do your best at hard critical thinking your were taught and really analyse this. And yes, before your put reams…

      Read more
    23. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Good, Paul, you recognize you are indeed "biased" -- which means avoiding facts -- "Knowing cognitive bias plays a part in 'all' our data gathering,"

      The link you put up for Chernobyl damages wasn't paired with the Swiss study of Chernobyl casualties. Why, Paul? You've had that link too.

      But, in any case, your words and "Cognitively biased" links, simply undercut you again and again.

      You choose not to understand the root cause of problems you wish to use for your propaganda.

      For example…

      Read more
  8. Dan Cass

    Lobbyist for the forces of good at Dan Cass & Co

    The nuclear industry is in terminal decline, because it is expensive and uninsurable.

    I ask Barry to either accept the fact or, if he's unable to do that, at least stop the ad hominem attacks on "self-proclaimed environmentalists" and "protestors".

    Most people in the energy debate are participating for good reasons and offering up constructive criticisms and other contributions.

    We don't need Barry and his pro-nuke group constantly attacking other environmentalists and undermining renewable energy technologies. Lets leave that to Clive Palmer, Gina Hancock and the climate denialists!

    report
    1. Tom Keen

      PhD Candidate; Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.

      In reply to Dan Cass

      The comment wasn't an ad hominem, as it wasn't a premise to the conclusion(s) of the argument(s) in the article. It wasn't really an attack either I don't think - I can't speak for the authors, but I interpreted it more as them viewing the excitement about what is currently happening in Japan as misguided.

      As for your final comment, one could equally say, "We don't need Person X and his/her anti-nuke group constantly attacking other environmentalists and undermining low carbon energy technologies," don't you think?

      report
    2. Brett Burgess

      Engineering Manager

      In reply to Dan Cass

      The nuclear industry is far from being in decline and it is just a matter of time before it is the majority power source in the world.

      Regarding costs, it is true that the up-front cost of a nuclear power plant is higher than that of coal/gas, however, over it's lifetime, due to low fuel and maintenance costs, the economics of nuclear power make sense and is the reason why France has one of the cheapest energy prices in Europe (with 75% nuclear energy production). Curiously enough it is Denmark…

      Read more
    3. Paul Cm

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to Dan Cass

      "Most people in the energy debate are participating for good reasons and offering up constructive criticisms and other contributions."

      I agree. That is why I respect Barry's approach.

      report
    4. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      That conveniently avoids the true accounting for the investments in subsidies & FITs and the removal of lands from normal agriculture, particularly in Germany.

      The Danish head of their renewables programs was here speaking a few months back and acknowledged that costs are not on;ly high, but are not always 'green', such as burning methane from accelerated pig poop composting.
      ;]

      report
    5. Brett Burgess

      Engineering Manager

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      Zvyozdochka, here are the retail (end user) energy prices for France, Germany and Denmark taken from http://www.energy.eu/#Domestic-Elec

      (Consumption: 3,500 kWh/year (± 25%))

      Country € per kWh Electricity
      Denmark € 0.2982
      France € 0.1412
      Germany € 0.2541

      It is no secret that the economics of renewable energy do not stack up and require both subsidy and the average household to bear the increasing energy costs.

      report
    6. Zvyozdochka

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Brett Burgess

      The European Energy Exchange is the trading authority for generated electricity.

      No surprise that retail prices (which include a large component of transmission costs etc) will vary. Domestic electricity in Germany represents about 22% of consumption.

      Industrial electricity is on par with France in both Denmark and Germany with both of those two falling according to the EEX. Not 'double' any way you cut it.

      Your subsidy comment applies equally to other forms of energy, especially nuclear now and historically.

      report
    7. Zvyozdochka

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      You keep perpetrating the 'land use' lie.

      We have solar panels and a small windmill on our house and surprisingly to you, it hasn't taken any argricultural land, nor do the industrial versions.

      report
    8. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      f you actually read what I & others write, Z, you'd not embarrass yourself by mentioning panels on your home, since that's what I & many jurisdictions support.

      As to household windmills -- up to you and your neighbors & zoning laws.

      As for wind 'farms' they always were and always will be wasteful of power, land and resources. If you can't figure out why, study.

      report
    9. In reply to Zvyozdochka

      Comment removed by moderator.

    10. Luke Weston

      Physicist / electronic engineer

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      You have have solar panels and a small windmill on your house... ok, so how much energy does it generate in any given year, and with what availability factor?

      report
  9. Marion Brook

    BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

    By definition, environmentalists are people who want what's best for the health of our planet and it's ecosystems. As such, halting the globally devastating effects of climate change must, logically, be our forefront objective. After all, there is little point saving discrete portions of our environment (an area of forest here, a section of reef there) from localised environmental pressures only to lose them all to unmitigated, climate change related, drought, storm, sea inundation or fire a decade or so later. So can we all just agree on one point? Where our energy supply is concerned we must replace gas, coal and oil BEFORE replacing any zero-carbon generators.

    report
    1. Luke Weston

      Physicist / electronic engineer

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Unfortunately, Marion, the trouble comes when many people who call themselves "environmentalists" reject your definition of environmentalists, as people who want what's best for the health of our planet and it's ecosystems (and understand, characterise and implement that with science, technical literacy, skepticism and critical thinking), and they implement their own definition of "environmentalism" which is really just oriented around a sort of religious adherence to an unquestionable set of unscientific ideologies and dogmas, such as the rejection of nuclear engineering, biotechnology, synthetic chemistry and the like.

      report
    2. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Marion Brook

      It is not convincing to claim that only the number one threat to sustainable living is to be pursued while ignoring the rest of the threats. Genetic damages from radioactive contamination are a threat to mankind itself, and all other organisms on the planet. Atmospheric contaminants will be reduced over time, but genetic damage cannot be restored. While renewable energy cannot immediately resolve global warming issues, it most certainly can and will do so with continued investment. Energy storage…

      Read more
    3. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to aligatorhardt

      Gator, no one is suggesting a single solution, or pursuit.

      Your statements miss the fact that we all know local solar PV/hot-water (DG) is the optimal, long-term solar power source, with no land or species impacts, low loss and superior robustness.

      It's also clear to all that efficiency, good storage, EVs, etc. are essential, and are coming to fruition along with DG. In fact, EVs even add to the storage component via inertial-energy recovery (regenerative braking).

      The negative comments…

      Read more
  10. Arthur James Egleton Robey

    Industrial Electrician

    The conversation about Energy is being tightly controlled because it is so important.
    Question: How many forms of Nuclear energy can you identify? 2?
    Fission and Fusion. And that's It? Are You sure?
    You have got to follow the bouncing ball. Times change, new discoveries are made.
    In response to troubling empirical evidence, Professor Peter Hagelstein successfully predicted collimated x-rays (a form of Gamma radiation) from the surface of mercury. (The metal, not the planet.)
    This prediction…

    Read more
    1. Ludwig Heinrich

      Generalist

      In reply to Arthur James Egleton Robey

      Hi Arthur
      Perhaps a better place to start, for people unfamiliar with this topic, might be: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-FAQ.shtml
      Low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) are weak interactions and neutron-capture processes that occur in nanometer-to-micron-scale regions on surfaces in condensed matter at room temperature. Although nuclear, LENRs are not based on fission or any kind of fusion, both of which primarily involve the strong interaction. LENRs produce highly energetic nuclear…

      Read more
    2. Arthur James Egleton Robey

      Industrial Electrician

      In reply to Ludwig Heinrich

      Yes, I went to Daejeon to the ICCF17 conference.
      My report can be found here.
      http://coldfusionnow.org/updates-from-iccf-17/

      The problem with trying to communicate new information is to get past the model making,self-referential Left brain. Here is the problem.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI&feature=related
      It is important to go in hard and fast because you only have a 5 second window before the left begins to censor out facts that it supposes to be untrue.

      report
    3. Arthur James Egleton Robey

      Industrial Electrician

      In reply to Arthur James Egleton Robey

      Did you see that I had been marked down? I obviously did not get my message across quick enough for somebody.

      report
    4. Arthur James Egleton Robey

      Industrial Electrician

      In reply to Ludwig Heinrich

      I see that Krivit has removed the page "Is there a theory to explain the family of phenomena." from his site.
      The problem is that there were too many phenomena and too many theories.
      Krivit might have heard of Prof. Hagelstein's successful prediction, and retreated to reconsider his piece. I do not know.
      He was not at the ICCF17.

      report
  11. Peter Hindrup

    consultant

    How is it that in these energy discussions sea energy is never included? Japan, with its coastline must have innumerable sites where one of the various methods of harvesting are practicable.

    Clean, low cost, inexhaustible, without any of the storage problems inherent in (some of ) the other renewables. The sea must be the greatest, and most obvious energy source on earth, yet it is almost totally ignored.

    report
    1. Sanghyun Hong

      PhD Student, Sustainable energy network planning & analysis at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Peter Hindrup

      thanks for your comment, the reason is simple, as Japanese govt didn't include ocean energy in their plan. And the other reason is that, in Korea there is one tidal power and it is environmentally and socially harmful. Wetland degradation and losing fish farming are the biggest and there are a lot. I don't see it is sustainable. Other systems' wavw and current, are not possible to be online before 2030. So we didn't consider it. But for the longer-term scenario, ocean power should be considered, so as nuke gen iv, ccs, and other all possible options.

      report
    2. Chris Harries

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Hindrup

      Peter, on the contrary sea energy is discussed frequently and there has been much research into it. The romantic idea of capturing all that energy in waves and tides has not been too easy to turn into reality, on a commercially profitable basis, but we may still see that day.

      A larger problem for society is that producing electricity is the easy part of the global energy problem. Nearly all conversation is about that ... wind, nuclear, wave power, solar pv, solar thermal... and there's a lot of…

      Read more
    3. Peter Hindrup

      consultant

      In reply to Sanghyun Hong

      Thank you for the reply, and providing a compelling reason.

      That said, could you expand on: "Wetland degradation and losing fish farming are the biggest and there are a lot. I don't see it is sustainable."

      skip the : '. . . Wetland degradation and losing fish farming are the biggest . . ." that could be addressed by the location chosen, it is mainly t sustainable bit that I am interested in.

      Back, probably late 50's or early 60's, a Scandinavian country, I think Norway, installed huge…

      Read more
    4. Peter Hindrup

      consultant

      In reply to Chris Harries

      Chris: saw your comment after answering Sanghyun Hong.

      I willing to stand corrected, but there are few references across my reading, seems I must expand it somewhat!

      As a youngster I grew up in the mountains, in New Zealand and we had a permanent stream with great fall, running past within 50 metres of the house. Today there are innumerable 'systems' available which would power everything including the woolshed at little cost.

      I have never forgiven myself for missing the bloody obvious…

      Read more
    5. Chris Harries

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Hindrup

      Thanks Peter,

      I'm the odd one out in these debates because though I see various opportunities I also see our society's focus on supply side solutions as a pathological obsession. Part our our collective denial.

      Ironically it is the environment movement's gung-ho obsession with supply side solutions that has persuaded me that society is not prepared to fundamentally change and will do anything to try to keep the juggernaut growing at all costs.

      Since there is no silver bullet with any single…

      Read more
    6. Peter Hindrup

      consultant

      In reply to Chris Harries

      Chris: now we are on the same page, but you have shifted the point of the debate.

      How anybody imagines that we can go on as we are, and that somehow things will work out is beyond me. My guess is that a line will be crossed and the whole system will collapse.

      report
    7. Graham R.L. Cowan

      Researcher

      In reply to Peter Hindrup

      <blockquote>How is it that in these energy discussions sea energy is never included? Japan, with its coastline must have innumerable sites where one of the various methods of harvesting are practicable.</blockquote>

      Any discussion of nuclear power in Japan implicitly involves sea energy harvesting, because <a href="http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/TM_Vienna2009/presentations/22_Tamada_Japan.pdf">Japanese researchers have demonstrated marine uranium extraction at $0.60 per MMBTU</a>. Contrast this with their LNG imports, coming by ship over the same ocean, but costing them $16/MMBTU*.

      report
  12. Alex Cannara

    logged in via LinkedIn

    Indeed, Japanese, and German, political decisions re nuclear power are simplistic and dangerous.

    There is no safer form of mass power generation: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

    We oddly accept tens of thousands of deaths from coal alone each year. We accept hundreds fro gas & its transmission each year. Similarly for the various oil sources and refineries & transport.

    There's no comparable loss of life or injury cost from nuclear power, despite our current LWR technology being invented in…

    Read more
    1. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said "....... Japanese, and German, political decisions re nuclear power are simplistic and dangerous."

      Yes, dangerous to the militarised nuclear industry as this 2011 report bears out.
      There was a 32% rise in green energy investments worldwide according to the latest annual report on renewable energy investment trends issued by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

      report
    2. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, you miss that to combat climate change at all, we needed `1GWe per month of new, carbon-free generation, starting in the 1960s. You may then get an idea of how absurd most 'renewables' have been and remain.

      Only local solar PV/hot-water (DG) has any long-term usefulness, which is why states & local governments are urging such projects along -- e/g/. Calif's "million solar homes" initiative..

      The debt now, because we indeed had the Cold War distracting nuclear-power developments, is about…

      Read more
    3. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said " Imagining a "militarised nuclear industry" is simply ignoring facts"
      It does not need imagining, there is no conspiracy theory and the spending by the military is on record as is the allegiance to nuclear industry.
      Granted we do not know all the information on the militarised nuclear industry, however there is a paper / digital trail over fifty years of this experiment that has yet to prove it is viable. Nothing has been hidden that will cover up the stark truth nuclear is…

      Read more
    4. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, you clearly need more study in the military and civilian uses of nuclear physics. Start with Muller's "The Atomic Obsession", then move to something like Weinberg's "The First Nuclear Era", then maybe to a good journalist's history of what you should know, like Martin's "Supr fuel".

      Just as renewable promotions have often been political & industrial scams, so have other energy sources. Why you imagine nuclear power and the military have uniquely close links, is just odd.

      report
    5. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex you and I have conversed on many occasions. saying " ...... more study in the military and civilian uses of nuclear physics"

      Reading those books and many more documents on the history, developments and future direction of the militarised nuclear complex has been done. I would not come out with a well considered opinion on nuclear energy without a grounding in understanding. We both know those books and papers published data over fifty years are 'sales' aids for ignorant government officials and 'friends of the industrialised military complex'.
      Using an evolved set of values and those sales aids are transparent.
      Yes, we may find a way to use nuclear in the future, but let the nuclear complex stand on its own two feet, well over fifty years of government subsidisation is more than adequate.
      Just imagine where the world would be if it had funded true renewables to the same value and used micro grids instead of the monopolistic energy models set out by Edison.

      report
    6. Marion Brook

      BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

      In reply to Paul Richards

      A 32% rise? Really? Assuming that is true, has there been a corresponding drop in CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel generation being wound down or, better still, replaced? ...Or was this investment in non-carbon generation rendered pointless (in terms of climate change – which is, after all, the point) by attempting to replace other non-carbon generators?

      I just don't understand how we can be so flippant about the inevitability and devastating global reach of inadequately mitigated climate change…

      Read more
    7. Chris Harries

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Whilst agreeing with you, equally, it could be said 'how we can be so flippant about the devastating impact of climate change and yet be so consumed with worry about such things as noise from wind turbines'. The penny has yet to drop on the real threat of unmitigated climate change and the result of that is a lot of irrationality.

      Also whilst agreeing with you, I think we have to be a bit more careful about the flippant use of terms such as 'non-carbon generators' and 'greenhouse gas-free power…

      Read more
    8. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Marion Brook BA, Grad Dip Ed said;
      "A 32% rise? Really? Assuming that is true ... "

      What an uninformed flippant comment you made in to assuming another person would lie about publicly available piece of information put out by the United Nations.

      With respect, due diligence and firm ground is needed making an accusation like that.

      You may attack my firm belief we reject a major zero-carbon generator like nuclear power. Simply because for over fifty year trillions of dollars per anum has been sunk into this industry. they persist with the experiment.
      It has still no data proving it is cheap viable and unsupported by militarised subsidies in all countries operating power facilities.
      By any stretch of the imagination this 'glow boy' era is passing.

      The United Nations document you assume is a lie, can be downloaded here;
      http://www.unep.org/NEWSCENTRE/default.aspx?DocumentID=2647&ArticleID=8805

      report
    9. Tom Keen

      PhD Candidate; Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Why don't you try arguing honestly for a change, Paul? Marion did not in any way deny the growth figure for renewables - you completely made that up. Just like your claim that I had linked to industry data in another comment.

      Marion was only pointing out the stupidity of replacing one low-carbon energy source with another while fossil fuel use continues to grow.

      "militarised subsidies" - scary words mean nothing in this debate. Good luck on finding any energy sources that don't need subsidies to compete with coal and gas. Government/public money being invested in low-carbon technologies is a good thing.

      report
    10. Marion Brook

      BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Just so Tom, and my apologies to you Paul, I was expressing surprise more than disbelief. I also did not mean to imply you were lying, but since you did not provide a reference through which I could easily verify your claim (at least not without going to more bother than a comment thread warrants), I could do no more than “assume” you were correct. Which I did.

      Which do you think we should replace first, fossil fuels or nuclear power?

      report
    11. Marion Brook

      BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

      In reply to Chris Harries

      Thanks Chris,

      I agree entirely with the points in your first paragraph.

      As to terminology, it's a slippery fish, that's for sure. I use terms like non-carbon or zero-carbon generators as a convenient short-hand to refer to “power plants that do not directly burn any carbon or emit any CO2 during the generation of electricity”. This is the meaning that is in common usage and I think it's fair enough, after all, while the first few plants we build will, necessarily, have high embedded emissions…

      Read more
    12. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      "We both know those books and papers published data over fifty years are 'sales' aids" -- we do? What have you been reading?

      "nuclear complex"-- really? Yes, the manufacturers of solid Uranium fuel have a great desire to preserve their business, which has nothing to do with weapons. It also has little to do with the advanced nuclear-power designs done decades ago and now again today.

      This conspiracy theory approach is great, if you don't want the facts and you wish to mislead others toward your position, Paul.

      But, you clearly don't get the differences among nuclear physics/engineering, nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

      report
    13. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Paul Richards

      "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.

      Page 211: "In 2005, the production cost of electricity from nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour;
      from coal-fired plants 2.21;
      from natural gas 7.5,
      and from oil 8.09.
      American nuclear power reactors operated that year around the clock at about 90 percent capacity,
      whereas coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent,
      hydroelectric plants at 29 percent,
      natural gas from 16 to 38 percent,
      wind at 27 percent,
      solar at 19 percent,
      and geothermal at 75 percent."
      The costs per kilowatt hour for solar and wind are 600 or more times the cost for coal, and that is in sunny and windy places, respectively.

      report
    14. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Chris Harries

      We indeed have gone past the point of return to the climate and other friendly properties of the world. We've been overwhelming the carbon cycle for over 100 years. So, the choices we make should be the ones that give us the most durable, lowest emitting power possible.

      That's long been known to be nuclear and conservation. That was the uncompleted plan in the 1960s: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

      Now, fortunately, local solar PV (DG) is efficient enough and cheap enough to add in, because it uses no land, wastes no transmission and is cheap & durable..

      That means we can build a future on 3 legs: Solar DG, safe nuclear, and efficiency. Efficiency includes better storage, EVs, conservation, etc.

      The bottom lie is that in 2000 our emissions-free energy debt was 1GWe/month of new power replacing fossil. We failed. So now it appears we need to re-engage to just limit our future to a few thousand years of real environmental problems.

      report
    15. Marion Brook

      BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

      In reply to aligatorhardt

      "A false question, as we will replace both."

      Assuming we wish to replace both, which do you think should be replaced first, the CO2 emitters or the non-CO2 emitters? Which is the bigger threat to our global ecologies and future well-being, climate change or nuclear power?

      report
    16. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Since civilian & naval nuclear power has remained the safest form of mass generation for its entire history, http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l , then what many iin the world are doing to expand it quickly is wise -- as wise as it was in 1962 http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa though a bit late to avoid what our descendants now will face.

      report
    17. Marion Brook

      BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Baby steps Alex. My question is valid, it must be answered and it must be answered before nuclear expansion can even be contemplated.

      In one fell swoop Germany 'permanently' shut down eight nuclear power plants – not CO2 spewing, climate change creating, coal plants but eight large scale, baseload, non-CO2 emitting power plants. If they were able to shut down that much baseload capacity why, WHY, didn't they immediately make it coal? What a stupid, irresponsible, careless act!

      What Germany…

      Read more
    18. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Marion Brook said; " So, Paul Richards, aligatorhardt and co, you have to choose, it cannot be avoided. Which is worse, nuclear power or climate change?"
      Your demonstrative criticism comes for a personal value system and need to project it onto ours. Which really is childish and shows very poor critical thought has gone into your 'premise'.
      It may seem to you that believe if we say this or that then this must mean they belive this ridiculous truth.
      My worldview without speaking for others comes…

      Read more
    19. Marion Brook

      BA, Grad Dip Ed (student)

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul Richards said: “Which brings me to your points, believing simplistically the only option is nuclear.”

      Firstly, I never once said the only option is nuclear, that's your straw man. I have clearly stated I support all non-carbon options (hydro, geothermal, solar thermal, solar PV, wind etc.) where ever their application is most efficacious.

      Secondly, you're the one supporting the simplistic, knee jerk reactions Paul. You are the one who appears to be happy to leave the coal plants operating…

      Read more
    20. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Marion Brook sadi ; "... knee jerk reactions Paul."
      Please provide examples of how my value system has led to 'knee jerk' reactions?
      Yes, you certainly are right to access my mindset as 'anti nuclear'.
      After seventy years of poor environmental management by the industry. No viable solution to the storage of unused nuclear fuel and serious long term waste nuclear waste issues. No human history of governance lasting long enough to care for the needs of nuclear waste. Fifty years of promises of…

      Read more
    21. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      So now Paul is reduced to propping up "nuclear waste" as his naive, political and unscientific and inhumane reason for being blindly anti-nuclear and ignorant of nuclear science & engineering?

      Great! Now he's in a corner for all to see, because he doesn't understand, or want others to understand, that nuclear waste isn't "waste":
      www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/
      www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nuclear-waste-need-not-be-a-radioactive-debate/2012/06/12/gJQA9aOVYV_story.html
      www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/dec/13/used-nuclear-fuel-is-a-good-energy-source

      Read more
    22. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Marion Brook

      Marion, I think we agree, but I'm not sure what your question really is. Yes, we do need to deploy, as fast as possible, whatever reduces emissions fastest and whatever offers the ability to make carbon-neutral fuels for aircraft, etc.

      Advanced nuclear does both. Local solar helps. But overall, certainly the gas revolution now occurring can, for a few years, bump considerable coal off the grid. None of this will be fast enough to avoid tragedies worldwide.

      It would have been fast enough in the 1970s.

      report
    23. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said; " Paul, advocating against something he makes no real effort to understand"
      This sentence goes to the heart of ever single word you and others have uttered on this forum in projecting personal values onto those unconvinced of nuclear safety, its power generation and long term value to the planet.
      There is list of nuclear incidents causing contamination and death that is not hidden, but readily accessible. Information for any critical thinker reading without bias to make a valued…

      Read more
    24. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, if you were a "critical thinker", you would at least have studied the research on power sources, including all nuclear accidents in civilian power history. You've had the information given you and you still blather without bother.
      ;]
      Let's try again to see if you actually care to know of what you speak -- just a few examples to start with...

      http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

      www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

      http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

      And, while you're reading, note the news stories about people dying all around the world from the combustion industry you naively assist with your bias.

      report
    25. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said " while you're reading, note the news stories about people dying all around the world from the combustion " Why?
      I have been anti carbon energy domination since I was fourteen. I certainly understand all the lines of argument put forward by these heinous corporation who have monopolised our culture and hijacked our human future. Corporations whose framework is shared by the militarised nuclear power industry.
      Corporations who are inhabited by a higher ratio psychopathic individuals, shielded by limited liability, given rights over humans in law, while occupying apex of the economic pyramid. Subjugating every human to a prime motive of 'exponential growth and profit at all cost.'
      You actually expect anyone with and advanced value system to belive the carbon or nuclear industries message of 'trust us we are now clean and green?'
      Intelligent as you may be Alex, projecting your value system onto others is not 'clever'.

      report
    26. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul is: "anyone with an advanced value system "

      Well, I guess we've all been told, eh Paul?

      That 'advanced' system means you can ignore inconvenient facts, like the unequalled safety of civilian nuclear power, or the net effect of what you advocate as benefitting the combustion industry you say you've long lived with?

      Really? You display breathtaking disrespect for facts and yet expect others to listen to you? An "advanced value system"?

      Peddle that precious, supercillious drivel elsewhere, Paul, if you can.
      ;]

      report
    27. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; " Really? You display breathtaking disrespect for facts and yet expect others to listen to you?
      Yes really, you are right, I do not respect the fact the American model of exponential growth and profit comes before all other considerations.
      The current economic model is a hideous distortion of human capabilities and potential, the generations coming through have taken notice. Anyone supporting realistic energy models within current corporate framework is delusional.

      report
    28. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Finally, Paul, after all your waste of network and server power, we get to your fundamental conspiracy: "the American model of exponential growth and profit comes before all other considerations. "

      Well, what can we say. Nuclear power is the co-conspirator with "exponential growth."

      Tell you what, should you or a relative unhappily experience the "exponential growth" of some cancerous disease, tell yourself or them to avoid any medical treatments that derive from nuclear reactors.

      If you don't like "exponential growth" of problems, join the rest of us who advocate for their prevention. But that will require honest study. Sounds like a conflict for your "advanced value system", eh Paul?

      report
    29. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara when explaining his view of the economic systems exponential growth model, said; " .......that will require honest study."
      Honest study of simple K5 - K7 arithmetic, on exponential growth and what it means is easy, to easy for some.
      The greatest shortcoming of the humans is our inability to understand The Exponential Function.
      Here is a video on the simplicity of exponential growth as outlined to group of University students ten years ago, it is doubtful there is a better explanation.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ&feature=share&list=PL3300DB41E04CD5DF

      report
    30. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said "..........unhappily experience the "exponential growth" of some cancerous disease".
      Great analogy, a brilliant model for 'exponential growth' and like virus only lead to one consequence, death.
      So why are we using this model for our political economic system? How could it possibly be of benefit to our humans and the planets ecosystem?

      report
    31. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      You seem to be in conversation with yourself now, Paul.

      Who here is advocating "exponential growth" of anything?

      report
    32. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said " ...Who here is advocating "exponential growth" of anything? I am sorry, you have gone from mocking with bananas and K7 arithmetic, I am confused.
      Please let me explain, the premise of the nuclear lobby is the future growth trend in power consumption and all the justifying data about our 'need' for nuclear power, puts this central to the militarised nuclear industries argument.
      The nuclear argument falls completely flat if we reduce consumption, reduce waste, learn to conserve…

      Read more
    33. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Glad we now know whom to come to for info on "the nuclear lobby", Paul. Are they like the wind or solar 'farm lobbies? Last I heard, those were the only ones making headway in Australia.

      But you do love odd conspiracies, eh?

      " the nuclear lobby is the future growth trend in power consumption and all the justifying data about our 'need' for nuclear power, puts this central to the militarised nuclear industries argument. The nuclear argument falls completely flat if we reduce consumption…

      Read more
    34. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; "Glad we now know whom to come to for info on "the nuclear lobby", Paul. Are they like the wind or solar 'farm lobbies? Last I heard, those were the only ones making headway in Australia."
      Alex, or should I call you "Banana Man", thanks for the comment light hearted as ever.
      Alex Cannara said ; "But you do love odd conspiracies, eh?" What conspiracies, I just see business operating at the apex of our economic system run by people at the SDi orange stage of development. My…

      Read more
    35. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      "The fact that the carbon energy industry has all but decimated the nuclear is all good from my perspective." -- that says it all about your thinking, Paul.

      The billions around the world who didn't contribute to our emissions problems will be encouraged by your sense of responsibility and forward thinking, eh?

      Indeed, the combustion folks love what you do. They especially love your paranoia that paralyzes your thinking.

      So, if there is indeed a wisdom behind your "good PC / internet", we'll have no worries. All the honest truths will be accurately found and disseminated by you.

      That well explains why your words are weightless, Paul.

      report
    36. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; "The fact that the carbon energy industry has all but decimated the nuclear is all good from my perspective." -- that says it all about your thinking, Paul." Thank you, I appreciate the kudos.

      Those two relics of another era in the guise monopolistic corporate entities, or "Blobs spreading across the globe" as Ralston Saul called them. Have been tearing each other appart politically and commercially allowing alternative energy to become the innovators the planet needs. There…

      Read more
    37. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Paul Richards

      I do miss editing, I apologise for leaving this sentence hanging, there was a domestic issue with 'the big bad blender' I was distracted. Still that is the charm of no editing in this forum and the risk : )

      "Even though we failed as a Nation we did education the now worlds leading ......" Solar entrepreneur to develop solar energy, as Suntech was spawed here and it is the worlds leading solar panel maker and China now leads globally in this viable alternative to nuclear and carbon energy.

      Thanks again Alex your nuclear perspective and undying faith is always welcome.

      report
    38. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ' " So again, you're in some mental echo chamber, devoid of facts."
      Alex how far do you want to go with facts?
      I have not bothered, because anyone setting cognitive bias aside using hard critical thinking can find facts about nuclear damage to all of this planets genetic code, mutating it. Regretfully I post this tragic report.
      The motive of the qualified writers - to highlight the damage caused by the nuclear industry to our largely pristine planet.
      The motive of the nuclear energy industry - exponential profit from the corporate strategy of promoting exponential growth of unrealistic human desire for more and more energy.
      You be the judge of who has the right motives highlighting or covering this information up;
      http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

      report
    39. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, I don't get it -- you demonstrate both ignorance of environmental issues and scientific facts, you admit "bias", and yet you still expect some here to give weight to you ramblings?

      You don't even bother to read that I've already committed to local solar energy, EVs, advanced storage, etc. You simply focus on my nuclear interest.

      So, without study, you think you can say some of our best scientists, Nobellists, etc. know less than you about nuclear science & radiobiology? Yhat they were/are unconcerned with safety & weapons, despite many founding anti-nuclear-weapon groups?

      Really?

      Do you see how absurd you make your own discourses?

      report
    40. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; " I don't get it -- you demonstrate both ignorance of environmental issues and scientific facts, you admit "bias", and yet you still expect some here to give weight to you ramblings?"
      Vested interest, is just that 'financial interest.' , lets call a spade spade 'corporate profit driven interest'. I have not put data up written by 'vested interest groups', you know this as does all the nuclear lobby, the only answer you have to the dat is to attack the source, and its motive…

      Read more
    41. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      You'd be great as a climate denier or fact avoider, Paul! The combustion folks love what you do.

      report
    42. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      So Paul, is ignorant bias a :"vested interest"? You seem willing to make that your goal.

      Remember, what you believe is no concern. My only concern is that your absurd lack of respect for knowledge doesn't influence others -- they don't deserve your drivel.

      report
    43. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex I sense the humour is gone, ok so be it. " So Paul, is ignorant bias a :"vested interest"? You seem willing to make that your goal."
      I will agree for the sake of your 'line of argument' on 'vested interest'.
      The paper I put up has 'vested interest' - a demonstrated clear motive of keeping this planets genome clear, and ecosystem functioning properly to support life.
      The nuclear energy industry has 'vested interest' in profitability for its stakeholders and share holders to make as much financial gain as possible.
      I welcome lines of argument refuting my premise using your 'line of argument' about 'vested interest'.
      Take your time Saturday night is time for family and friends and I know you have all day.
      Wishing you well.

      report
    44. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; "So, without study, you think you can say some of our best scientists .......... were/are unconcerned with safety & weapons, despite many founding anti-nuclear-weapon groups? Really? Now that is a "Straw man argument'"

      Because we all know that within the history of the militarized nuclear industry, may of those working on 'Big Boy' expressed lifelong regret, and I deeply respect their perspective.

      As for those brilliantly talented scientist and engineers working within…

      Read more
    45. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said "You'd be great as a climate denier or fact avoider....... "
      This is where we differ in understanding of personal and group stages of development or value systems. Because I would trust you or Barry Brooks value system to manage a fourth or fifth generation nuclear power system safely and to apply the right profit motive to benefit mankind.
      However, the current nuclear culture is one I would not use to provide a vehicle maintenance for my Passat Wagon, the motive for existing is poor to rotten and their is history of behaviour I would be ashamed of in a family relative.

      report
    46. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, if only your words indicated mastery of sincerity!

      Your "vested interest" appears only to be what you, in happy ignorance, "vest". That's not the mark of an intellectual, though you pretend that's your status.

      You apparently think any source of honest study that deflates your uninformed bias suffers from "vesting". Did you ever read the Swiss report on all power? Are the Swiss also "vested" in the conspiracies you imagine?

      Here's another chance for you to study reality, but remember, I don't care what you think. I only care that others aren't misinformed.by you.

      http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

      And, more current...
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
      www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
      www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

      report
    47. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Your "futurist" study makes you an expert in things you don'y study because you don't like them, Paul?

      That's hardly a path to the "respect" you say you deserve.

      You demonstrate above an inability to separate dropping bombs from providing safe nuclear power. So you ball yourself up on the se odd verbal twists.

      The people who signed the letter to Truman saying don't drop the A-bomb and designed safe nuclear power systems did not leave the "trail of mess leading back to the dawn of the nuclear…

      Read more
    48. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; " Paul, if only your words indicated mastery of sincerity!" I would be Jesus Christ if I was a 'Master of Sincerity', what the hell are you babbling about? Alex if you are going to take snide guerrilla shots at me, please step it up, and make the logical.
      As for "Messiah Monbiot" we both happily exchanged correspondence before his 'assention' and agreed on nuclear. Now he has had a meteoric rise in personal income, popularity and new found fame, I do not value him as a source…

      Read more
    49. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said " Your "futurist" study makes you an expert in things you don'y study because you don't like them, Paul?" Try reading that sentence aloud and see what you think of it, seriously.
      I sometimes use my iMac to read text back to me to see if it makes sense, partly because our family suffer dyslexia and to see if I constructed a sentence logically. I fail often as you know, because we have no editing here.
      As for me understanding you points, I do make no mistake.
      This is where…

      Read more
    50. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, your problems with you father's honesty aren't ours to deal with.

      You willingness to mislead yourself and others with so naive a belief as:

      " I look for someone who is not motivated 'first' by money, but loves doing what he does and helping people is a personal value. Probabilities are low he will rip me off right? "

      sounds so self-promoting, that the only difference between you and a businessman you despise is that he/she is after $ first --you are simply after your own comfort and protection of your own psyche's misinformation.

      For example, I make no $ on what I say re solar, nuclear, wind... power.

      So, by your standard, you should be lauding my words. But, you can't control your own desires for naive biases and comfortable ignorance.

      This is why your words here are meaningless, Paul. Your father could also explain it to you, maybe he has tried.

      Remember, I don't care. I only care about others being lied to.

      report
    51. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Well, well, Paul. You8 must not be JC, but God! Anyone who takes any $ in their work is suspect, eh?

      What's the work you've done for $? Did you lie because of the $, or just because that's what seems to suit you?

      So the Swiss are liars, Monbiot is a liar,. Everyone who has anything to do with nuclear anything is a liar, too, eh? Like Enrico Fermi, Glenn Seaborg? Eugene Wigner? The Curies?

      Tell us how you know all those dead folks are liars, Paul.

      Tell us how you know that the internal radiation from your food that you choose to eat (without knowing its radioactivity) differs from what you breathe from a regional coal plant. Remember, except for your earnest, 'knowledge' and nuclear opposition, that coal plant might simply be a nuke. eh Paul?

      What you reveal is an attitude not worth another's time. Which I think has been said to you before.

      report
    52. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said " So the Swiss are liars, Monbiot is a liar,. Everyone who has anything to do with nuclear anything is a liar, too, eh? Like Enrico Fermi, Glenn Seaborg? Eugene Wigner? The Curies?"
      Man you just don't get it do you.
      No one is lying about anything they truly believe what they are doing is right, proper and fair. It is a value system issue I question, this is why you question my sincerity. I hold different value to you , you can not possibly accept mine or understand them.
      However…

      Read more
    53. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said " Paul, your problems with you father's honesty aren't ours to deal with." My fathers honesty certainly is not you fool. I did not call it into question, we simply carry separate value systems, I feel he is an honest trust worthy man and every one of his projects commissioned as team leader have be unscrupulously honestly dealt with. How dare you imply otherwise.
      I simply used his value system to illustrate a point that went clear over your head.
      Alex Cannara said "For example…

      Read more
    54. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, give it up. You seem unable to write cogently: "I can see from your evident value system, you to like my father would follow through and be unscrupulously honestly deal with".

      Keep on aiding the combustion folks, they love it.
      ;]

      report
    55. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, the problem is that you value nothing you don't believe in, even if your belief is based on falsehoods. That's what all the gyrating phrases above say.

      Whether someone lies or not, they can propagate lies. That's what you do, very happily, it seems. That's what's called irresponsibility.

      You won't even own it -- that's the disgrace.

      Not being a therapist, I can't help you and I see no healthy reason why you continue this self admiration & avoidance of fact you naively call a "value system".
      .

      report
    56. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; "Keep on aiding the combustion folks, they love it." Ohh ..... is that it? You simply refute my premise and cannot accept it is a legitimate way to view life. Even though your values have been respected and understood. Ok, it is your interior and personal values are complex. Wish you well.

      report
    57. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Yes, Paul, my " interior and personal values are complex."-- truth is important to me, since that's the only way people progress.

      Your words suggest choosing personal comfort over truth.

      report
  13. Peter Hindrup

    consultant

    Graham, thanks.

    Notice the Japan Current. Offers possibilities/opportunities.

    report
  14. Ludwig Heinrich

    Generalist

    And the other elephant in the room?
    In July and August, the government arranged "public discussion" on the nation's nuclear policy through public hearings and deliberative polling, asking residents for their opinions on the nation's future energy policy. In this discussion, public support for a zero nuclear power policy was predominant. In compiling the outcome of the discussion, State Minister for National Policy Motohisa Furukawa commented, "The public majority favors the realization of a society free from reliance on nuclear power plants."

    Aside from the absurd inaccuracies of the article, e.g. nuclear is a zero-carbon energy technology, there is also the anti-democratic prescription embedded in the article. Not that surprising from the nuclear lobby, whose attachment to a militarised world is tautological.

    report
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ludwig Heinrich

      "the nuclear lobby, whose attachment to a militarised world is tautological" -- I'd love to meet your imagined "nuclear lobhby" that's interested in a "militarised world", Ludwig.

      Perhaps you can't bear the irrefutable safety of western nuclear power (http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l) or the fact that its net contribution to CO2 emissions from all related sources is half that of even windmills, and lower than all other forms of mass power production.

      Reality is a problem for the naively biased, eh?
      ;]

      .

      report
    2. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Paul Richards

      You have already been answered above.

      573 certified deaths were due to evacuation-related stress at Fukushima.  Zero due to radiation.  February 4, 2012 http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/2/4/japanese-authorities-recognize-573-deaths-related-to-fukushi.html
       
      "Japanese authorities recognize 573 deaths related to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe
      As reported by the Yomiuri Shimbun:
      "A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the…

      Read more
    3. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Edward Greisch said ; " ...... Zero due to radiation .... " So far, but you know very well radiation is ingested an like asbestos pays out over time.

      This European Commission Working Document 2012 outlines all the current nuclear risks and costs.
      There is no conspiracy to hide the information, the nuclear industry simply cannot stand up unaided, and has failed to do this for sixty years.

      http://static.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/stresstest_long_version.pdf

      report
    4. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      " radiation is ingested an like asbestos" -- in ione sentence, Paul, you show you're ignorant of what radiation is. means and its threats.

      Radiation comes from radioactive elements. It's not "ingested". Something containing radioactive elements can be ingested, like the banana you may have eaten today -- oops!

      Radioactive elements emit radiation because they're disappearing into non-radioactive elements, just like the Potassium40 in your banana decays to Calcium in your bones, etc.

      So…

      Read more
    5. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said; " radiation is ingested an like asbestos" -- in ione sentence, Paul, you show you're ignorant of what radiation is. means and its threats. Radiation comes from radioactive elements. It's not "ingested".
      My reference was to long term effects of a dangerous substance internally creating disease, not the similarity in material. Internal emitters are much more dangerous than external emitters. Specifically, as an individual is only exposed to radiation as long as he or she is near…

      Read more
    6. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Despite more water, radiation still high in Fukushima, and certainly more than able to kill any human irradiated within an hour.
      On this basis the a cold shutdown scenario has proved false. TEPCO inserted a camera into the No. 1 reactor’s containment vessel on Oct. 9 for the first time since the plant was crippled by the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami. The surface of water could be seen 2.8 meters above the bottom of the containment vessel. TEPCO believes that the melted fuel, lying under the water, is still being cooled and gases steaming off.

      http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201210110078

      report
    7. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, if you want belief in what you say, use correct statements.

      Of course ingesting radioactive particles can be dangerous. If you ate some bananas or nuts recently, you've done that. why aren't you dead or cancer ridden?

      The emissions of steam from the water over the melted fuele in Japan, isn't throwing fission products, like Cesium into the air. If there were no water, then that could indeed happen, but your links don't say that.

      so, whatever you wish to believe is fine, buyt don't expect your lack of understanding of nuclear science/engineering to be blindly accepted when you clearly don't wish to study and understand.

      report
    8. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ; "Of course ingesting radioactive particles can be dangerous."

      Radioactive material in bananas hardly compares to the caesium 134 137 released in the Fukushima, this you already know. Please do no insult our intelligence with this banana BS.

      Alex Cannara said "blindly accepted when you clearly don't wish to study and understand" I can say the same of your stance on nuclear power being the only acceptable scenario.

      All the contamination the Japanese government have…

      Read more
    9. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Paul, the Potassium40 in each of our bodies is with us for life. Just as are naturally-ingested Uranium, Thorium, Carbon14, and other radioactive, biologically-incorporated isotopes.

      Just because you don't understand enough about nuclear science to know that Iodine131, for instance, disappears in several weeks, and is fully inhibited by the Iodine medication promptly given to the Japanese, doesn't mean anyone should blindly believe your unscientific anti-nuclear babble.

      No one is asked to…

      Read more
    10. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara; "The fact is your words show a willful desire to be ignorant of nuclear science and engineering, and to attempt to impose that ignorance on others for naive political purpose."

      So I take it from your comment there your answer to all those opposing nuclear energy industries promotion of its products worldwide and subsequent man made irradiation of the planet is 'I have a naive political purpose."

      Which is quite a leap, given you do not understand where my value system lies on…

      Read more
    11. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Again, Paul, your words display breathtaking avoidance of facts.

      You do now admit that Nature has allowed living things to eat banans, nuts and other sources of radioactivity. But you fail to understand why.

      And, you set up some odd straw man that what I say means "to ingest at a single sitting 53 trillion bananas".

      Of course, not only did I not say that, what you write shows you don't even understand our bodily functions. The kidneys, etc, regulate our potassium content to about 160 grams…

      Read more
    12. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said ;"...you set up some odd straw man that what I say means "to ingest at a single sitting 53 trillion bananas" "

      Alex go back and scan your comments, you have inferred the 'man made' radiation is safe by drawing a comparison to the safety of bananas and other foods able to irradiate internal organs. ergo; if bananas are safe why are we all concerned about 'man made' radiation in nuclear aste and contaminates from the numerous nuclear incidents of the last seventy years?
      You raised…

      Read more
    13. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Good, Paul, you've fully display your lack of interest in study, or in honest argumentation here, by saying I::" have inferred the 'man made' radiation is safe by drawing a comparison to the safety of bananas and other foods able to irradiate internal organs. ergo; if bananas are safe why are we all concerned about 'man made' radiation..."

      So, first, from your 'great' background in nuclear science & biology, explain how "man made radiation" differs from natural?

      You can't, eh? Hmmm.

      Maybe you can tell how a gamma ray from a banana's K40 differs from one emanating from K40 in nuclear "waste"? Can't do that either, eh?

      So, keep on demonstrating why you choose to have vapid arguments and weightless opinions, as well as an adversity to bettering your own knowledge.

      Others don't deserve the misleading statements you try to float.

      report
    14. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex Cannara said; " You can't, eh? Hmmm." Why bother?
      It is taught in K7-K10 science in every high school and college in Australia. Alex if you are going to take "childish lines of argument' and try and extrapolate a premise from them people will ignore you.

      Alex Cannara said; "vapid arguments and weightless opinions," Well you may very well believe that. A anyone reads from the pro nuclear lobby here is, lifted 'conservative think tank' lines of a argument and typical personal denigration tactics. Demonstrating unevolved value systems on a personal group and industry level.

      report
    15. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Your conspiracy theories abound, Paul. But, you never answer a direct question about facts. So why should anyone believe what you say?

      Remember, you can believe whatever you wish. It's just your misinformation that won't stand unchallenged here.

      report
    16. Paul Richards

      integral operating system

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Edward Greisch retired US gov scientist/engineer known militarized nuclear energy supporter " 573 certified deaths were due to evacuation-related stress at Fukushima. Zero due to radiation. February 4, "

      I had not bothered to put any of the data up, because it is not really that difficult to find. However after repeated challenges here particularly Alex "Banana Man" Cannara's last, it is only fair to post this for you.
      Knowing cognitive bias plays a part in 'all' our data gathering, I trust…

      Read more
    17. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Richards

      So Paul, you put up a Euro report that shows folks properly concerned with nuclear safety. Good. Do they meet your self-righteous requirement " no vested interest in promoting nuclear energy", despite their country's dependence on it?

      The Swiss did even more in 1998, remember? You've had plenty of time to read it and see that nuclear power has been the safest form of generation since it was commercialized, even if the illegal reactors in Chernobyl are included: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

      Read more
  15. Paul Yacoumis

    Master of Environment, University of Melbourne

    The Brundtland report called for measures that "meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Meanwhile, our energy demand continues to grow at a much greater rate than population in most nations. Does this mean that the basic "needs" of the human race increase with every generation? I don't think so. It is our expectations, instead, that have risen.

    Here's a novel idea: how about we actually take onboard Brundtland's plea and focus our economies…

    Read more
  16. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    573 certified deaths were due to evacuation-related stress at Fukushima. Zero due to radiation. February 4, 2012 http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/2/4/japanese-authorities-recognize-573-deaths-related-to-fukushi.html

    "Japanese authorities recognize 573 deaths related to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe
    As reported by the Yomiuri Shimbun:
    "A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear…

    Read more
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Very good points Edward. The reality is also that Nature has forever provided life forms with resistance to chemical and radiological damage -- cellular repair, DNA repair, cellular detritus digestion, and in worst case, cell suicide (apoptosis).

      Chemical threats\, especially from toxins and Oxygen, are the greatest, with radiation near and below background level being minor, or even beneficial, just as exercise is. (see Allison "Radiation and Reason")

      Because we live mostly in air, ~5Sv…

      Read more
  17. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    EVACUATE DENVER!!!! [not]
    If you live in Chernobyl the total radiation dose you get each year is 390 millirem. That's natural plus residual from the accident and fire. In Denver, Colorado, the natural dose is over 1000 millirem/year. Denver gets more than 2.56 times as much radiation as Chernobyl! But Denver has a low cancer rate.

    Calculate your annual radiation dose:
    http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/

    Please read this book: "Radiation and Reason, The impact of Science on…

    Read more
  18. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    Reference book: "The Rise of Nuclear Fear" by Spencer Weart. The fear started thousands or millions of years ago with the fear of witches, wizardry, magic etc. The design of the human brain is very bad. See "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer.

    "The Rise of Nuclear Fear" by Spencer Weart needs "Religion Explained" as background. A lot of modern first world people do magical thinking rather than logical or scientific thinking [not all logical thinking is scientific]. That is, they think of…

    Read more
  19. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED

    Reference: bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/29/gws-sg-es/
    Geographical wind smoothing, supergrids and energy storage

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/13/energy-storage-dt/#more-5281

    ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/RE.html
    RENEWABLE ENERGY – CANNOT SUSTAIN AN ENERGY-INTENSIVE SOCIETY. 

    bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/03/lacklustre-colorado-solar/
    Be sure to read the linked papers. In the Arizona desert, solar has dropouts in mid day for no apparent reason.

    Wind: There…

    Read more
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Sandeep Sabir Palakkal Makkintepurakkal

      Good link. It does miss a few things, so I commented...

      TEPCO, NISA, and the Japanese govt. allowed construction, not just of the Fukushima plant, but of businesses,homes, farms, even an LNG terminal, etc. in a known tsunami zone. The warnings by geologists were ignored. NISA & TEPCO ignored safety recommendations for Fukushima from GE engineers. The govt. even ignored centuries old stone tablets all around Sendai, carved by ancestral hands, saying: "Don't build here." (see Osnos, 17 Oct 2011 New Yorker).

      The Japanese govt. endangered hundreds of thousand of its citizens, not simply from poorly-managed nuclear power, but from even greater devastation.

      Fukushima is not a "nuclear power" problem. It's a Japanese land-use & govt. behavior problem.

      Even with Fukushima & Chernobyl, nuclear power remains the safest mass power generation ever deployed by mankind: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
      --
      Dr. A. Cannara
      650-400-3071

      report
    2. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Sandeep Sabir Palakkal Makkintepurakkal

      As I said above: There was no reason to evacuate Fukushima after the tsunami. The natural background radiation there plus the reactor leak was less than the natural background radiation here. The natural background radiation here is lower than the The natural background radiation in many places.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_background_radiation

      Natural Background Radiation is radiation that was always there, 1000 years ago, a million years ago, etc. Natural Background Radiation…

      Read more
  20. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    Are Sanghyun Hong and Barry W. Brook reading these comments? I couldn't find email addresses for them. Sanghyun Hong and Barry W. Brook are the people I want to communicate with, since they are on the right track. I thank them for leading me to "Prospects for Large-Scale Energy Storage in Decarbonised Power Grids." Information from other sources shows that sufficient energy storage is not likely. Renewables remain a niche solution and a fad.

    report
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      One of the bonusses of EV development is that new, hi power-density, low mass storage will become practical. One of the other advantages is that about 15% of the energy put into an EV is returned from inertial storage via regenerative braking.

      These two things impact both grid storage and demand, in good ways. The EV battery-swap idea behind BetterPlace, for instance, leads to real-time dispatch of power or load by utilities themselves, under contract.

      report
    2. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Electric vehicles are great, but I'm not holding my breath on battery development. Batteries have been under development for a century or so. You just can't get elements that are more active than the ones in the periodic table.

      Flywheels were proposed for energy storage in cars ~40 years ago. We don't have strong enough materials.

      Hydrogen storage in metal hydride has been researched.

      Burning metal wire has been proposed.

      Synthetic hydrocarbons made from CO2 extracted from air has been proposed.

      There could be recharging wires above the interstate highways.

      Etcetera. Etcetera.......

      I don't know what the answer is and guessing is not helpful.

      report
    3. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Edward, there are many ways to store charge, and the ultra capacitor is on its way to providing light, safe charge storage for vehicles, etc. Flywheels, of course, are incompatible with devices we want to maneuver, etc. Many developments in nanotechnology are assisting mobile and stationary electric storage.

      report
    4. Edward Greisch

      retired US gov scientist/engineer

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Go ahead and take YOUR city off line just to see how soon you get tarred and feathered. It won't be long. Your suggestions are pointless without the math to back them up. I know about all of those ways to store charge.

      Flywheels can be gimbaled, but we don't have suffiuciently high strength materials for the flywheel itself.

      report
    5. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Edward Greisch

      Ed. never suggested off-lining cities, now did I?

      Velkess is an example of flywheels for industries wanting 85% in-out efficiency and about 200kWHr of storage. Military bases are looking for similar. Much larger flywheels are installed in main power station generator bays for utility-scale storage now.

      But, the real advance in the works will come from things like nano-technology and charge storage in benign materials, as in the ultra-capacitor. It is, already, included as part of some high surge-delivery auto batteries.

      report
  21. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    I just started reading "Science Left Behind, feel-good fallacies and the rise of the anti-scientific left" by Berezow and Campbell.
    I have already read "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney, 2005, Basic Books, and similar books.

    It seems that a lot of politicians and capitalists have a lot of trouble with the truth and with arithmetic. The religious don't know what truth is. I suppose I should be happy that we are not still in the dark ages. The Enlightenment happened. But so many…

    Read more
  22. Edward Greisch

    retired US gov scientist/engineer

    The following was censored from BraveNewClimate It is a collection of several articles.
    There is no such thing as "nuclear waste."
    The year was 1968. We had only Generation 2 reactors. Spent fuel was recycled.

    It was in 1968 that I almost took a job at NUMEC in Apollo, PA. They were RECYCLING nuclear fuel. Generation 4 was half a century in the future. They made spent fuel back into fuel for Generation 2 reactors.

    We don't recycle nuclear fuel because it is valuable and people steal it…

    Read more