Reversing Global Warming: Individual vs Corporate Responsibility?

[SOS2008]

Well I guess I'll just stick with the hot water tank. Even if solar panels were affordable, installation in an existing home could be a nightmare. Thanks to all for the information (PF is way better than a husband when it comes to these things ). However, this kind of evaluation only makes me all the more concerned about what individuals, or for that matter, companies can do to save energy.

 

[loseyourname]

With regard to my reference to automobiles as the big polluter, I said this with it in mind that as individuals this seems to be of more impact than all the other things we can do in regard to the environment. And if the rest of pollutants are coming from industry, then the blame can't be placed so heavily on individuals. (Hmm, maybe there is a capitalist pig-dog conspiracy against individuals...?)

Really? Why do you think industry produces electricity and manufactured consumer goods that result in the release of greenhouse gases? For their health? Or could it be because people like you and me buy stuff and use electricity?

 

[SOS2008]

Really? Why do you think industry produces electricity and manufactured consumer goods that result in the release of greenhouse gases? For their health? Or could it be because people like you and me buy stuff and use electricity?

Individuals should do what they can to conserve and not to pollute. However, industry is an even larger user of energy and producer of pollution. Consumers have had an affect on what companies do via purchase decisions, but can only do this to a point. What can the consumer do when there isn't an alternative product to choose? It is even more difficult for consumers to have an influence on energy alternatives.

Using the hot water tank for example. I really don't see an alternative to heating water in any other way. About the only choice might be using electricity (more expensive) versus natural gas (not renewable), but I don't even have this choice.

So per the post of this thread, how much responsibility for change can be placed on individuals, how much on industry, and how much on government? I feel government has to take the lead in order to achieve a significant change.

 

[hitssquad]

Geothermal water heating and the Kaslik Dome

Using the hot water tank for example. I really don't see an alternative to heating water in any other way.

http://www.waterfurnace.com/content.aspx?section=why&page=faqs2

--
Can a geothermal system also heat water?
Yes. Some geothermal heat pumps can provide all of your hot water needs on demand at the same high efficiencies as the heating/cooling cycles. An option called a desuperheater can be added to most heat pumps. It will provide significant savings by heating water before it enters your hot water tank.
--


A geothermal heating system uses electricity to run water pumps and refrigerant compressors to extract heat from (and, for house cooling, transmit heat to) the ground. The electrical power used is a fraction of the heating and cooling power harnessed. Check out Monolithic Dome home designer Jim Kaslik's geothermal system:
http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/kaslik/comfort/qhca-d-03.pdf

That link has the most information on Jim's geothermal system, but here is more on his very unique Dome house in general:
http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/kaslik/

His Dome house has 5300 square feet of heated living space, and he says his maximum monthly HVAC cost would be $95 if he ran it 24/7 but that he never needs to run it that much to maintain comfortable temperature and a by-design relative humidity of 35-45%. And, yes, Jim has a fireplace, but I don't know if he ever uses it. You could ask him since he hangs out on the Monolithic Domes Institute BBS answering questions:
http://bbs.monolithic.com/

 

[loseyourname]

Individuals should do what they can to conserve and not to pollute. However, industry is an even larger user of energy and producer of pollution. Consumers have had an affect on what companies do via purchase decisions, but can only do this to a point. What can the consumer do when there isn't an alternative product to choose? It is even more difficult for consumers to have an influence on energy alternatives.

Personally I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy to speak of industry and consumers as if they are completely separate. Both are made up of individuals. The individual can innovate in both cases. Consider your statement that there are no alternatives to these technologies that pollute. Well, yes, there are alternatives, they just aren't viable, cost-effective alternatives. What is the consumer to do? Most consumers will do what they have been doing - buy what is cost-effective to maximize their spending power. What is industry to do? Produce what is most cost-effective, both because that is what the consumer is buying and because the alternatives are must riskier. It is unfair to expect either entity - consumer or producer - to do what is against their economic self-interest because, given the way our economy is set up, they will cease to exist if they do.

The thing that both industry and consumers can do is to be more efficient in their usage of the energy they do use, regardless of where it comes from. A large part of the onus there probably should be on government to make it in these entities' short-term interest to do so. The other thing would be to provide public funds for research into alternatives, something that seems to be coming around to some extent, but given how strained the budget already is, I'm not confident it will be enough.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then one might think that the leading advocates for homepower, the editors and publishers of Home Power Magazine, would be telling people that. But they don't. On their website and in their magazine they say that you cannot make money with homepower. I went to a seminar at the University of Oregon back around 1998-1999 put on by the founder of Home Power Magazine. He said he has been off-grid since 1970 and that he was not there to tell us that we will save money by doing what he does. He said we will lose money doing homepower no matter how we do it -- but that we should do it anyway "for the environment."

Implied but never stated explicitly, I was also using 20 years as the lifespan of the equipment. That's why I said that the price for the power is a wash. And I certainly never said that you would make money with solar PV.

What is the interest on a $30,000 homepower system? At 5% interest, it is $1,500 for a year. Over 30 years, if interest is also charged on the interest, that adds up to $99,658. And that does not buy you $99,658 worth of power, or even $30,000 worth of power, because $30,000 would buy you a basic system. A basic system means you have to ration your power and energy use.

And you still have to pay interest in the money if you build this into a home loan.

This does not seem to me to make sense. Financing costs are financing costs. What might adding homepower financing to a home loan have to do with how much the interest will cost you?

That was a little confusing. You always want to bury large home improvement loans in your mortgage loan since the interest is then deductable. If you just put it on credit, the interest is not deductible except through special energy deductions and credits through taxes, as mentioned below.

Tax credits may or may not be relevant. Do you think tax credits do not cost money?

First of all, some alternative energy schemes offer tax credits and others are just deductible; and in both cases usually for some percentage of the capital costs. In either case this offsets the real cost of the system. In the case of tax credits, these are dollars added back to your return. A deduction only reduces your taxable income. So deduction are helpful, but tax credits can significantly offset the final cost of a system. But I agree, the interest is another killer. This can effectively double the cost of the system; or worse!

Where we live, low head hydro can yield cash returns. The trick [with this and most alternative energy schemes I would think] is to keep this system isolated from the grid. The capital investment for the connection can exceed the cost of the entire system. In my case, the safety switch [to prevent accidental feedback to the lines during outages] must be installed by a licensed electrician, and the hardware comes in at around $10,000.

As an aside, there is a guy down near Eugene that has a Francis Turbine on a creek with something like 100 gps flow and 30 feet of head; his own personal waterfall. When I met him [a neighbor of a friend], he was doing quite well with this. Smart guy!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for nuclear, I am open to new technologies, but the fact is that cases like Three Mile Island show that disasters nearly did happen. Only now do we realize how close we came to a catastrophe. At the height of the crisis, the two most knowledgeable people alive [wrt this system] were standing in the control room yelling at each other, and could not agree on how to control the situation. The crisis went on for days. This along with countless other concerns helped to earn the nuclear industry the distrust that it has enjoyed for a few decades now.

 

[hitssquad]

Homepower subsidies -- creating wealth by printing money

You always want to bury large home improvement loans in your mortgage loan since the interest is then deductable. [...] ...some alternative energy schemes offer tax credits and others are just deductible

This would seem to be an important question. Are we talking about the cost of electricity, or are we talking about the cost of electricity offset by subsidies? If we are talking about a scenario where every household and institution in America produces its own power, considering energy cost to be the cost after subsidies would not seem to make sense since since taxes paid out to fund subsidies and subsidies received as tax benefits would have to overall be equal (minus transaction costs). That is why I said, "Do you think tax credits do not cost money?"

Where we live, low head hydro can yield cash returns.

My guess would be that you are wrong about that. I think microhydro may be the least painful of all homepower options. I would be concerned about floods, though, living next to water.

In my case, the safety switch [to prevent accidental feedback to the lines during outages] must be installed by a licensed electrician, and the hardware comes in at around $10,000.

The Home Power guy called it The Golden Switch -- because power companies overcharge (according to him) to such a great degree for it.

As an aside, there is a guy down near Eugene that has a Francis Turbine on a creek with something like 100 gps flow and 30 feet of head; his own personal waterfall.

That sounds familiar. I think the Home Power Magazine guy showed a slide of his rig. Whomever it was in the slide, the Home Power guy said he said he was producing some rediculous amount of power -- way more than he could ever use on his own.

When I met him [a neighbor of a friend], he was doing quite well with this. Smart guy!

Personally, or you mean his homepower enterprise was profiting him?

 

[BobG]

I would tone that down just a little bit. Based on what I've seen, it appears that the payback for solar PV lands at right about twenty years. The actual price for the electricity is a nearly a wash, all things considered - like batteries. In effect you are buying the next twenty years worth of power up front. And you still have to pay interest in the money if you build this into a home loan. But there are tax credits to consider as well. My guess is that just now, the technologies to make solar PV practical are http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html.

Don't get me wrong - my comments were based on solar power's viability as an energy source today. The key statement in the article you posted is "The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs... "

I mentioned the 'old' standard boron and phosphorous doped silicon just because there's a lot of literature on them. Gallium arsenide solar cells are already being used and are more efficient than boron-phosphorous. The efficiency still isn't that great and the solar cells are more expensive to make.

But, the cost of solar power will almost surely go down and the efficiency will almost surely go up. Maintenance costs can be reduced by more reliable, longer lasting parts. It doesn't even have to match the price of fossile fuels -it just has to get close enough that taxes or regulations could artificially tilt the field towards a cleaner energy source without killing the economy in the process. It still definitely belongs in the 'future energy source' category, but at least it's a closer future than some of the other technologies tossed about.

As for nuclear, I am open to new technologies, but the fact is that cases like Three Mile Island show that disasters nearly did happen. Only now do we realize how close we came to a catastrophe. At the height of the crisis, the two most knowledgeable people alive [wrt this system] were standing in the control room yelling at each other, and could not agree on how to control the situation. The crisis went on for days. This along with countless other concerns helped to earn the nuclear industry the distrust that it has enjoyed for a few decades now.

I'm not sure the impact of nuclear is more severe than the impacts of energy generated from fossile fuel. The big difference is how fast you see the impact. With nuclear, you pay for mistakes now and then wonder how you're ever going to clean up the mess you just made. With fossile fuels, we push the cost of our mistakes into the future and hope we come up with a way to fix them before the bill comes due.

Have the effects localized to a few communities rendered virtually uninhabitable for a few thousand years or have the entire globe suffer the consequences of reduced air quality and global warming? Tough decision. I'm certain the choice most people would pick is the same one they tend to pick on Social Security - "Hmm, if we work things just right, we might be out of here before the bill comes due".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This would seem to be an important question. Are we talking about the cost of electricity, or are we talking about the cost of electricity offset by subsidies? If we are talking about a scenario where every household and institution in America produces its own power, considering energy cost to be the cost after subsidies would not seem to make sense since since taxes paid out to fund subsidies and subsidies received as tax benefits would have to overall be equal (minus transaction costs). That is why I said, "Do you think tax credits do not cost money?"

Oh I agree. I was only considering the personal aspects. To me, solar PV is only practical now for large applications in solar friendly areas; if then.

My guess would be that you are wrong about that. I think microhydro may be the least painful of all homepower options. I would be concerned about floods, though, living next to water.

Well I could be wrong; that's for sure. I have studied my creek for fourteen years and know its charactestics very well. But as is often the case, the trial by fire will be the maintenance costs. And of course, my system would be like none you've ever seen. To me the numbers look real good, with a payback in less than five years. This is in part because Banki turbines can be built and installed rather cheaply. I also have a natural point to put in small dam, so in part, luck is on my side. Also, by applying the smart load scheme that I dicussed earlier, much of the costs are eliminated. No batteries less for buffering, and no large inverters.

The Home Power guy called it The Golden Switch -- because power companies overcharge (according to him) to such a great degree for it.

Yes, 90% of the cost is probably for the liability, but it is shocking when you see the price.

That sounds familiar. I think the Home Power Magazine guy showed a slide of his rig. Whomever it was in the slide, the Home Power guy said he said he was producing some rediculous amount of power -- way more than he could ever use on his own... Personally, or you mean his homepower enterprise was profiting him?[/

When I talked with him he was claiming to make about $10,000 a month selling back the power. I don't remember the facts any longer, but at the time I ran the numbers and it looked right.

 

[russ_watters]

Solar panels are about 30% of the capital cost of PV. They could be free, and homepower would still be a money-losing enterprise.

Russ and I already went over these points somewhat in the Alternative power source for garage thread.

Since that 30% was news to me then, I've been trying to think of ways around that, and using it just for A/C is what I came up with. If nothing else, not putting yourself off the grid would allow for a smaller array and less batteries. It might help the equation, but I haven't done any math on it.

As for nuclear, I am open to new technologies, but the fact is that cases like Three Mile Island show that disasters nearly did happen.

No, Ivan - TMI shows us that even if everything possible goes wrong (and so many mistakes were made that in another context it would seem like sabbotage), disasters don't happen with American reactors. The are inherrently safe, meaning barring actual intelligent (intelligent because it would take some knowledge to even make it work) sabbotage its impossible for a full-blown Chernobyl style meltdown to happen.

And I must, as always, point out that while nuclear power doesn't kill people, coal power kills tens of thousands a year in the US alone. It would take about Chernobyl a year for nuclear power to equal that.

No, saftey, while often listed as a "con" is one of nuclear power's biggest "pros".

 

[hitssquad]

300kw micro hydro

When I talked with him he was claiming to make about $10,000 a month selling back the power.

Maybe it was less than that. At $0.05 per kwh, $10,000 a month would require producing 200,000 kwh per month which would be a continuous power output averaging 278 kw. Utah State University built this 300 kw system...
http://www.canyonindustriesinc.com/Projects/ProjectsCom/ProjectsCom.htm

...which has 30 feet of head and 143 cfs of flow. You reported the same 30 foot head, but 143 cubic feet is 1070 gallons which would make that flow about 11 times your report of 100 gallons per second. I would guess either your guy is making closer to ~$1,000 per month or, as you suggested, your memory of his system specs is not perfectly accurate.

Attached is the picture of the Utah State University 300 kw hydro system from the above link. It looks pretty big, to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe it was less than that. At $0.05 per kwh, $10,000 a month would require producing 200,000 kwh per month which would be a continuous power output averaging 278 kw. Utah State University built this 300 kw system..

As I said, I don't remember the actual numbers but when I ran them at the time it looked reasonable. I do remember the 10K a month pretty clearly though. Perhaps the flow was in cfs.. Also keep in mind that this used a Francis Turbine. By definition, you would never invest that amount of money in such a small set up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since that 30% was news to me then, I've been trying to think of ways around that, and using it just for A/C is what I came up with. If nothing else, not putting yourself off the grid would allow for a smaller array and less batteries. It might help the equation, but I haven't done any math on it. No, Ivan - TMI shows us that even if everything possible goes wrong (and so many mistakes were made that in another context it would seem like sabbotage), disasters don't happen with American reactors. The are inherrently safe, meaning barring actual intelligent (intelligent because it would take some knowledge to even make it work) sabbotage its impossible for a full-blown Chernobyl style meltdown to happen.

And I must, as always, point out that while nuclear power doesn't kill people, coal power kills tens of thousands a year in the US alone. It would take about Chernobyl a year for nuclear power to equal that.

No, saftey, while often listed as a "con" is one of nuclear power's biggest "pros".

We nearly did have a complete meltdown. We got lucky.

Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared. In a worst-case accident, the melting of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release massive quantities of radiation to the environment. But this did not occur as a result of the Three Mile Island accident.

The accident caught federal and state authorities off-guard. They were concerned about the small releases of radioactive gases that were measured off-site by the late morning of March 28 and even more concerned about the potential threat that the reactor posed to the surrounding population. They did not know that the core had melted, but they immediately took steps to try to gain control of the reactor and ensure adequate cooling to the core. The NRC’s regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, was notified at 7:45 a.m. on March 28. By 8:00, NRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C. was alerted and the NRC Operations Center in Bethesda, Maryland, was activated. The regional office promptly dispatched the first team of inspectors to the site and other agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, also mobilized their response teams. Helicopters hired by TMI's owner, General Public Utilities Nuclear, and the Department of Energy were sampling radioactivity in the atmosphere above the plant by midday. A team from the Brookhaven National Laboratory was also sent to assist in radiation monitoring. At 9:15 a.m., the White House was notified and at 11:00 a.m., all non-essential personnel were ordered off the plant's premises.

By the evening of March 28, the core appeared to be adequately cooled and the reactor appeared to be stable. But new concerns arose by the morning of Friday, March 30. A significant release of radiation from the plant’s auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core, caused a great deal of confusion and consternation. In an atmosphere of growing uncertainty about the condition of the plant, the governor of Pennsylvania, Richard L. Thornburgh, consulted with the NRC about evacuating the population near the plant. Eventually, he and NRC Chairman Joseph Hendrie agreed that it would be prudent for those members of society most vulnerable to radiation to evacuate the area. Thornburgh announced that he was advising pregnant women and pre-school-age children within a 5-mile radius of the plant to leave the area.

Within a short time, the presence of a large hydrogen bubble in the dome of the pressure vessel, the container that holds the reactor core, stirred new worries. The concern was that the hydrogen bubble might burn or even explode and rupture the pressure vessel. In that event, the core would fall into the containment building and perhaps cause a breach of containment. The hydrogen bubble was a source of intense scrutiny and great anxiety, both among government authorities and the population, throughout the day on Saturday, March 31. The crisis ended when experts determined on Sunday, April 1, that the bubble could not burn or explode because of the absence of oxygen in the pressure vessel. Further, by that time, the utility had succeeded in greatly reducing the size of the bubble. [continued]

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

So even though you don't worry about much, the experts clearly did.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Incidently, after being promised that failures like TMI could not happen, as we seem to be hearing again, it was also claimed that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter".

I'm not implicitly opposed to nuclear power, but I am opposed to those who ignore the risks or claim that they don't exist. This is why accidents happen.

We also must consider the risk of terror. A gravy train of nuclear material offers many opportunities for terrorists.

It has not be shown that safe methods of managing the waste can be implemented.

But most importantly, it has certainly not be shown that supporters of nuclear power are willing to recognize the risks.

 

[hitssquad]

Know Nukes and concerns about TMI

There have been many changes made since TMI, Ivan. One change is that sparkers are installed in the containment shells. This safely burns the hydrogen as it is produced during accident conditions. Beyond changes in practices, the new Generation III reactors which might be built soon in the United States address historical nuclear power safety issues from a design level.

If you have other concerns or questions, you can address them to the nuclear power experts at the Yahoo discussion list Know Nukes. Pro-nuclear activist and nuclear engineer Jim Hoerner is the list owner. The only other list moderator is anti-nuclear activist Norm Cohen of UNPLUG Salem, a group operating under the non-profit umbrella corporation Coalition for Peace and Justice and working to shut down Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located in New Jersey.

 

[hitssquad]

Remembering Admiral Lewis L. Strauss

Incidently, after being promised that failures like TMI could not happen, as we seem to be hearing again, it was also claimed that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter".

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Chapter14j.htm

--
Nuclear critics frequently claim that nuclear energy has failed to deliver on its early promise of "electricity too cheap to meter". The original source of this quotation is a talk in New York on September 16th, 1954, to the National Association of Science Writers by Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, then Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, when he said: "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy electrical energy in their homes too cheap to meter." What the critics do not tell is that Strauss was talking about nuclear fusion energy, not fission that is today's nuclear energy.
--

 

[hitssquad]

We also must consider the risk of terror. A gravy train of nuclear material offers many opportunities for terrorists.

What is Prussian Blue?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that the new designs look very promising, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that changes would have been made, but this does not mean that all possible situations are accounted for. Also, new technolgies mean a whole new set of problems. Finally, waste management is a huge issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is Prussian Blue?

Do you always play games?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Chapter14j.htm

--
Nuclear critics frequently claim that nuclear energy has failed to deliver on its early promise of "electricity too cheap to meter". The original source of this quotation is a talk in New York on September 16th, 1954, to the National Association of Science Writers by Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, then Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, when he said: "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy electrical energy in their homes too cheap to meter." What the critics do not tell is that Strauss was talking about nuclear fusion energy, not fission that is today's nuclear energy.
--

What matters is how it was sold; by lies. Now you all seem to be in denial that nuclear power is dangerous. This is very concerning.

The proper posture is to consider what nuclear has to offer with utter dread.
We may ultimately have no choice, but as long as the proponents make this sound about as safe as running a bakery, you will not make any converts.

 

[hitssquad]

G3 vs G4 reactors -- one is new technology, one is refinement only

I agree that the new designs look very promising [...] but [...] new technolgies mean a whole new set of problems.

There are no new technologies in Generation III power reactors. Generation III is a refinement on Generation II. This lack of new technology and focus only on refinement is primarily what is supposed to make them so safe. Perhaps you were thinking of the proposed Generation IV designs. Those involve new technologies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Uh oh. When are the pebble style reactors coming online? To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

 

[hitssquad]

PBMRs vs the NRC's containment requirements

When are the pebble style reactors coming online?

PBMRs (pebble bed reactors) are essentially illegal in the United States because the United States nuclear regulatory culture puts a priority on assuring containment and has decided that, in the case of the PBMR, containment means each of the individual pebbles themselves. Observers have consensed that the standards the NRC holds traditional reactor containment shells to cannot be met by mass-produced pebbles. Putting traditional steel reinforced concrete containment shells around the PBMRs would satisfy the NRC but would negate the PBMR cost advantage. Therefore, PBMRs are never coming online in the United States.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There must be competing designs that offer the same advantages.

Also, I could care less about cost. Aren't these the designs that physically cannot melt down? Are there any meltdown proof designs being considered? I have seen simulated tests where the coolant to the reactor core was cut off completely without a problem. Is this the same technology?

 

[hitssquad]

I would _never_ play that reactor

To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

I once attended a talk by the late guitarist/music-instructor Howard Roberts wherein he related that he had once been teaching a class of guitar students some interesting chords. At least some of these chords apparently were pretty colorful because, as Howard reported to us his talk audience, after he showed the guitar class one of the chords in particular one of the students complained, "I would never play that chord." Howard admitted to us that it had been a thoroughly obnoxious-sounding chord. But he then pointed out that the aesthetic value of a chord might not best be judged by how it sounds alone, but by how it sounds in the context of a chord progression -- and that even the most dissonant chord, as that one was, can be revealed to be a thoroughly aesthetically-pleasing chord within the appropriate context.

To the aurally-offended guitar student, chords only made sense when their sounding cacophonous was physically impossible. But musical harmony is not a static sounding of stacked tones. Musical harmony is a dynamic shifting between consonance and dissonance. The judging of a power technology out of social context might be seen as simplistic as the judging of a chord out of musical context.

 

[hitssquad]

Are there any meltdown proof designs being considered?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=429651&highlight=pbmr#post429651

 

[hitssquad]

Management challenges in human enterprise

waste management is a huge issue.

I would suspect that management is a huge issue in all human enterprise. The waste streams associated with solar, hydro and wind power generation modes all pose considerable management challenges, yet that might not by itself be sufficient reason to rule them out as electrical generation options.

 

[hitssquad]

Reactor core meldowns in risk perspective

To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

The Nuclear Energy Option. Chapter 6: The fearsome reactor meltdown accident.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter6.html

--
[...] the word meltdown has become a household word. We will use it here, although it is no longer used by risk analysis scientists. In the mind of the public, it refers to an accident in which all of the fuel becomes so hot that it forms a molten mass which melts its way through the reactor vessel. Let's use the word in that sense. The media frequently referred to it as "the ultimate disaster," evoking images of stacks of dead bodies amid a devastated landscape, much like the aftermath of a nuclear bomb attack.

On the other hand, the authors of the two principal reports on the Three Mile Island accident agree that even if there had been a complete meltdown in that reactor, there very probably would have been essentially no harm to human health and no environmental damage. I know of no technical reports that have claimed otherwise. Moreover, all scientific studies agree that in the great majority of meltdown accidents there would be no detectable effects on human health, immediately or in later years. According to the government estimate, a meltdown would have to occur every week or so somewhere in the United States before nuclear power would be as dangerous as coal burning.
--

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What you are referring to is the China Syndrome, not the meltdown scenario. You are confusing movies with real events like TMI and Chernobyl. As for the pbmr designs, either you are telling me that they are not safe, or you are telling me the the NRC is heavy with politics and making bad decisions. Which is it?

Oh yes, the resolution to the hydro issue is the flow. I was thinking in gps, but in fact I get flows as high as 100 cfs, and my creek is much smaller than his. I am pretty sure that the 30 feet of head was correct.

 

[hitssquad]

What you are referring to is the China Syndrome, not the meltdown scenario.

I was not aware of that. I thought a meltdown, unqualified, was an event that involved the accidental complete melting of the fuel core into a molten mass. What is a meltdown, then?

 

[russ_watters]

Incidently, after being promised that failures like TMI could not happen, as we seem to be hearing again, it was also claimed that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter".

apro pos for the politics forum: the reason nuclear power isn't by far the cheapest form of power is the politics. The nimbyism and hippie anti-Nuke-anything-ism succeeded in destroying what was and is by far the best energy source available.

I'm not implicitly opposed to nuclear power, but I am opposed to those who ignore the risks or claim that they don't exist. This is why accidents happen.

Well, what annoys me the most is the problems created by overblowing the supposed risks (see the cost and politics above). Risks can be measured (unless they are too low...). What is the measured risk of nuclear power? With 40 years of operational data in the western world: zero fatalities for people not involved in its production. That's truly extrordinary.

We also must consider the risk of terror. A gravy train of nuclear material offers many opportunities for terrorists.

Does it? You could probably drop a cask of nuclear waste from orbit and it would survive. What could a terrorist possibly do? The things they do to those casks during testing are pretty brutal.

It has not be shown that safe methods of managing the waste can be implemented.

Catch-22: you can't demonstrate something is safe until you do it. But "environmentalists" won't allow it to be done. But at the same time, the same "environmentalists" tacitly support coal power, which has proven to kill people. This self-contradictory, hipocritical homicidal lunacy is why I put "environmentalist" in quotes for so many organizations (most environmentalist organizations).

(I really need to put this in my sig: "environmentalism" kills people)

But most importantly, it has certainly not be shown that supporters of nuclear power are willing to recognize the risks.

I recognize that the track record of nuclear power has given us data that shows zero risk. However, since you can't really have zero risk, the strongest statement that can really be given is that the risk is incaclulably low. So most importantly, it has certainly not been shown that the detractors of nuclear power are willing to recognize the [lack of] risks.

What matters is how it was sold; by lies.

Simply false: the anti-nuclear movement is fueld by lies.

Now you all seem to be in denial that nuclear power is dangerous. This is very concerning.

What concerns me is that 20,000 people in the US die every year due to air pollution and the so-called "environmentalists" harp on imagined risks to kill nuclear power. Who is really in denial?

To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

I know you'll love this: I don't consider that important. Why? First, what I said before: risk can never technically be exactly zero, so requiring an exactly zero risk is unreasonable. But more importantly, what if a reactor did meltdown once every 10 years or so?(hittsquad - once a week? Considering we only have 100 plants...) You tell me: I live 20 miles from Limerick. If Limerick experienced a total failure (say, a meteor hit it and turned it into a 500 foot crater, tossing all the nuclear material into the air) - how many people would it likely kill? 1,000 (acute radiation sickness)? 10,000 (after 50 years of cancer studies)? What is an acceptable risk?

Right now environmentalists accept 10,000 deaths a year. That's not a risk, that's an actual death rate. Frankly, that's unacceptable to me. Why is 10,000 deaths a year acceptable to environmentalists? Who is really more concerned about safety?

hittsquad: outstanding analogy. The unreasonable views of environmentalists, while unreasonable enough on their own, are just plain homicidal into their lack of context.

Re: "China Syndrome" - its a movie, not a real technical scenario. It loosely described a meltdown, but with a twist: the molten mass melted through not just the reactor or the building, but through the earth as well. http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=565

 

[russ_watters]

So, the OP:

Why are we not doing more about the environment?

Two words: irrational environmentalism.

 

[SOS2008]

Personally I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy to speak of industry and consumers as if they are completely separate. Both are made up of individuals. The individual can innovate in both cases.

Because corporations are comprised of individuals does not mean corporate entities are the same as individuals. Industry does not think of it's health, or their children or grandchildren as much as profitability and answering to share holders each day. Furthermore, as stated, industry uses more energy and pollutes more than individuals, and at the same time has far more resources to make changes.

But at the same time, the same "environmentalists" tacitly support coal power, which has proven to kill people. This self-contradictory, hipocritical homicidal lunacy is why I put "environmentalist" in quotes for so many organizations (most environmentalist organizations).

Environmentalists can be extreme, however, I'm not sure what you base this comment on. The Sierra Club is one of the foremost environmentalist organization:

http://michigan.sierraclub.org/traverse/coalproblems.htm

Utility companies are the largest single polluters in the United States and more pollution is released from burning coal than any other fuel commonly used by utility companies. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified 67 separate hazardous compounds and chemicals in the flue gas emitted from power plant smokestacks (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998). Over 55 of these are known neurotoxins or developmental toxins, which affect the development of a child’s brain, nervous system, or body, and 24 are also known, probably, or possible human carcinogens.

Personally I feel there has been good advancement in technology to prevent nuclear disaster. However, what to do with the waste remains a problem, and legitimate concern of environmentalists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So far as I have read the only problems with IFRs so far have been bad design which led to inefficiency and cooling system leaks which led to pollution and occasionally fires in the plants. As far as I know the IFR running in Russia is doing just fine and the American designs have never actually been implimented due to anti-nuclear lobbies.

Ivan, the reactor you mention that was tested was a small IFR produced by Argonne Labs. The project was halted shortly after that reactor was built.

Waste is definitely a problem, it already is one and we have nothing we can do about it but put it in a mountain where it will have to stay for over a thousand years. IFR utilizes reprocessing which will not only reduce the amount of waste but will also reduce the half life of that waste to only a few hundred years. The waste that already needs managing can also be reprocessed, used, and it's half life will be reduced as well. I'm not quite sure if it's just crackpot schemes but I have also read about work on methods for treating waste that will reduce the half life even further.