Best Source of Energy

[miniboes]

I had the shower thought that solar power really is nuclear power since sunlight is produced by nuclear fusion. I guess you could even say it's the same for wind.

Anyway, I think a combination of nuclear, wind, solar and maybe hydro is what's going to do the trick. I think nuclear is great, but simply doesn't have enough public support in densely populated areas. Solar and wind outperform each other depending on the climate, I think. For example, solar panels might work better in Spain, whilst wind power works better in Norway.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think geothermal energy is the best option, since it is unlimited provided by our own earth.

That's like saying hydroelectric is the best option. It only exists in a few locations. Geothermal vents, like waterfalls, are in limited supply. We should use the energy they provide when available, but it's not a solution to the world's energy needs.

I think nuclear is great, but simply doesn't have enough public support in densely populated areas. Solar and wind outperform each other depending on the climate, I think. For example, solar panels might work better in Spain, whilst wind power works better in Norway.

Solar and wind are no good in densely populated areas, and are only ideal in remote and highly diffuse populations. The reason is because carrying grid power like that to distant places is expensive, and we can't have many small nuclear plants for those situations.
Even if you cover all of the roofs in dense areas, you won't get enough power. And buildings break up the wind, so foil wind power.

You need nuclear for areas of dense population, and solar/wind for areas far off the grid.

[EquALLity]

Bernie Sanders recently called for a shutdown of the nuclear power plant 'Indian Point'.
At first I was disappointed that he brought his opposition to nuclear power into the campaign, but with Indian Point specifically, I think it might be a good idea to shut down.

If something happened, all of NYC would be impacted, along with millions of other people.
Apparently, it's had multiple leaks, and is currently decaying. While I support nuclear power over all because of the opinion of the scientific community, I am concerned with some of the power plants in the United States. We have thirty one plants in the US in the same condition as Fukushima Daiichi.

Of course, the Fukushima disaster was caused by the tsunami and earthquake, but it's not like something else couldn't trigger a meltdown (we've already been having issues with nuclear power plants leaking radiation etc. due to poor conditions).
I think it's important to keep nuclear power plants away from large cities, and to not use them longer and harder than they were designed to be used (like we currently are in many cases due to lack of regulation). Plants can be updated, of course, but apparently not all have been updated enough (presuming they were updated).
Nuclear energy might cause less death per year than solar, but that could change very quickly if something goes wrong at a (decaying and leaking) plant near millions of people.

What do you guys think?
Also, what should we do with nuclear waste?

[brimstoneSalad]

Bernie Sanders recently called for a shutdown of the nuclear power plant 'Indian Point'.

That's terrible. If he succeeds, he will have almost certainly lost my support, almost no matter what the opposition says, since it will confirm my fears. Maybe even against Cruz. Not saying I'd support Cruz, but I might just sit the whole thing out.

New York has long led the country in recognizing the importance of giving people the opportunity to breathe clean air through the Clean Air Act and in combating climate change through the enactment of carbon dioxide reduction programs.

Under Gov. Andrew Cuomo's energy plan, we will only be the leader in irony. On the one hand, the administration says we need to save upstate nuclear plants because closing them would result in the release of 12 million additional metric tons of carbon dioxide into our environment, which he called a “truly unacceptable outcome.” On the other hand, the governor is determined to close the Indian Point Energy Center, which would increase the carbon dioxide emissions by 8.5 million metric tons on an annual basis — or the equivalent of adding 1.6 million cars on the road. That’s nothing less than a giant step backwards.

When it comes to public safety, transparency is great, but fear-mongering is harmful. Case in point: recently, Indian Point Energy Center did the responsible thing and voluntarily reported finding a small amount of tritium in groundwater at the plant. The recorded levels were 1/1000th — that is 1,000 times less — than what the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires to be reported. Simply put, the water poses no threat to the public. This water is also not used for drinking water.

Rather than commending Indian Point for its focus on safety and voluntary transparency, some politicians and media outlets decided to create hysteria, based on misinformation and falsehoods. Such manufactured hysteria creates unnecessary anxiety. It also impedes us from recognizing and dealing with actual threats to public health and safety — like the pollution that would be pumped into our air from fossil fuel plants if Indian Point were to close.

Warning, slow website (I wouldn't bother clicking it, relevant bit quoted above): lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/02/18/view-indian-point-protects-air-quality/80302324/

but with Indian Point specifically, I think it might be a good idea to shut down.

It's a terrible idea to shut it, or any nuclear power plant, down. Money for repairs and upgrades -- sure -- but that's not what he's advocating.

The plant supplies 25% of the area's power, and if shut down will destabilize the power grid and create a danger of summer power outages. Sanders will be murdering the elderly and disabled in their homes with his chosen weapon of heat stroke.

He'd easily have the blood of at least a hundred people on his hands:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-black ... 7G20120127

If something happened, all of NYC would be impacted, along with millions of other people.

So say the fear mongers.

We have thirty one plants in the US in the same condition as Fukushima Daiichi.

Even if so, this is not a problem.
Please be aware that no people have been confirmed to be killed by Fukushima radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima ... casualties

Although it was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[8] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines, there were no casualties officially reported to be caused by radiation exposure.

A few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. Furthermore, at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Workers involved in mitigating the effects of the accident do face minimally higher risks for some cancers.[9]

Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged[10] in the academic literature from none[11] to hundreds.[12] On 16 December 2011, Japanese authorities declared the plant to be stable, although it would take decades to decontaminate the surrounding areas and to decommission the plant altogether.[13]

The Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed over 15,000 people from effects unrelated to Fukushima.

The conditions of the area and the panic of the evacuation actually killed more people than the radiation could have had there been no evacuation.
This has been widely confirmed.

The premature deaths reported in 2012 were mainly related to the following: (1) somatic effects and spiritual fatigue brought on by having to reside in shelters; (2) Transfer trauma – the mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes for fragile individuals; and (3) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami. However, the radiation levels in most of the evacuated areas were not greater than the natural radiation levels in high background areas elsewhere in the world where no adverse health effect is evident, so maintaining the evacuation beyond a precautionary few days was evidently the main disaster in relation to human fatalities.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ident.aspx

If there is a disaster, it'll be the fear mongers, and not the radiation, that's responsible for the most deaths.

I'll take an overwhelming probability of zero deaths even in the case of the most serious disaster possible (and at worse maybe a hundred deaths from higher cancer risk over a lifetime, many in volunteer workers) over a very likely hundred or so from a probable power outage in the middle of summer, and possibly thousands as a contribution to global warming from this single shutdown.

Of course, the Fukushima disaster was caused by the tsunami and earthquake, but it's not like something else couldn't trigger a meltdown (we've already been having issues with nuclear power plants leaking radiation etc. due to poor conditions).

A meltdown in and of itself is not that dangerous. Current Nuclear technology contains meltdowns, and they literally are just a melting of the fissile material into the ground. There's no giant explosion.
The situation in Fukushima was unique, because they were unable to cool the reactors due to the flooding from the tsunami.

Worst case scenario, as it should have been in Fukushima without government fear mongering and lengthy unnecessary evacuation, is some slight groundwater contamination (water that nobody drinks anyway) and possibly higher levels in the Hudson River for a short time (which, AFAIK nobody drinks), and low lingering ambient levels typical of what are otherwise considered safe levels of background radiation elsewhere in the world.

People fear things they don't understand, nuclear reactors aren't that scary though.
Thunderf00t does a great job exposing this issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDarcdMiIGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Syv9arXqU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8

The radiation danger is actually very small.

I think it's important to keep nuclear power plants away from large cities

Actually we need them near cities. Power should be produced where the power is consumed. Infrastructure cost to transmit power over long distances is huge, and so is the power loss.

The Indian Point plant seems to be at a very reasonable distance; out in the suburbs far north of the city where there's low population density, and about a half a mile away from where anybody lives so in the case of emergency evacuation is simple and probably not even necessary, but close enough to easily transmit power into the city where it's used.

and to not use them longer and harder than they were designed to be used (like we currently are in many cases due to lack of regulation).

These plants were over engineered and can last far longer than they're commissioned for.
The problem is too much regulation and public fear mongering, which prevents nuclear facilities from building new reactors, and new facilities opening. We need subsidies, not more restrictions and fines.
There are economic issues for nuclear, in competition with natural gas (which creates massive emissions, but is very cheap).

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5442 ... r-reactor/

While there are significant unknowns around extending the lives of nuclear plants built in the 1970s and 1980s, most people in the industry believe that the reactors can operate safely for 80 years. And it’s economic issues, not technical ones, that are likely to shutter aging nuclear plants over the next 20 years. Cheap natural gas and flattening demand for electricity have combined to make older nuclear plants relatively uneconomical. Although the price of uranium fuel is relatively low, and nuclear plants are comparatively inexpensive to operate (according to the Institute for Energy Research, the levelized cost of electricity from existing nuclear plants is lower, on a per-megawatt-hour basis, than that from combined-cycle natural gas plants), flagging demand, high maintenance costs, and competition from cheap natural gas are all combining to make it less attractive to utilities to keep older nuclear plants running.

Nuclear energy might cause less death per year than solar, but that could change very quickly if something goes wrong at a (decaying and leaking) plant near millions of people.

No, that's already taking into account disasters and radiation risk from leaks.

Also, what should we do with nuclear waste?

Waste disposal is not a real problem for nuclear power; it's less of a problem than for other industries, because there is so little waste.
The claim that it is some kind of problem is just political rhetoric based on scientific ignorance.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ement.aspx

[EquALLity]

Waste disposal is not a real problem for nuclear power; it's less of a problem than for other industries, because there is so little waste.
The claim that it is some kind of problem is just political rhetoric based on scientific ignorance.

We're studying ecology in science class right now, and in my regents review book, it says:

Nuclear fuel is an energy source that results from splitting atoms. Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or water with toxic chemicals, but they can cause thermal pollution of waterways. Also, the disposal of radioactive nuclear wastes presents a huge environmental problem.

Can you explain what this means in terms of the safety of nuclear energy?

[brimstoneSalad]

We're studying ecology in science class right now, and in my regents review book, it says:

Nuclear fuel is an energy source that results from splitting atoms. Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or water with toxic chemicals, but they can cause thermal pollution of waterways. Also, the disposal of radioactive nuclear wastes presents a huge environmental problem.

Can you explain what this means in terms of the safety of nuclear energy?

"Thermal pollution" is true sometimes. That means it warms water up. It's not a serious issue, and doesn't present any kind of lasting contaminant.

It's just not true that disposal of nuclear wastes presents an environmental problem, because it is not disposed of: it is kept. Nuclear waste is also nuclear fuel, if it's enriched. Nobody is dumping this stuff out.

The documentary Pandora's Promise shows the waste issue for what it is. It's on Netflix, if you have access I strongly suggest watching it.

[miniboes]

I just finished watching Pandora's Promise. Damn, that's one hell of a persuasive documentary. If the facts that come along are correct this completely blows the antinuclear position out of the water. Some of the facts I found most fascinating:

- 5% of US energy is derived from nuclear warheads bought from Russia (the symbolism here is very powerful);
- 77% of French energy is nuclear and all its toxic waste is stored under the floor of one room (which doesn't look particularly big);
- A nuclear meltdown is impossible with fourth generation reactors;
- Chernobyl and Fukushima are still habitable;
- Background radiation is not linked to cancer risk;
- Leaking from nuclear power plants is a non-issue; less radiation than a banana;
- Early anti-nuclear and pro-solar ads were funded by the oil industry;
- Coal is still the fastest growing source of energy worldwide;
- 1 pound of uranium the size of a fingertip contains the energy of 5000 barrels of oil. (can all this energy be extracted with the recycling process in breeder reactors?)

Some other things would probably also have fascinated me if not for the fact that Brimstone explained it on the forum. Sadly I can't find a Cowspiracy-style factsheet (http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts), but most of the information seems easy enough to verify.

I can now start mentally preparing myself for being the teetotal pronuclear vegan in the room.

I also found a documentary called 'Catching the Sun' on Netflix, it's about solar energy and whether or not the US is ready for a transition to solar energy. Has anybody seen it? Is it worth watching?

[brimstoneSalad]

I just finished watching Pandora's Promise. Damn, that's one hell of a persuasive documentary. If the facts that come along are correct this completely blows the antinuclear position out of the water. Some of the facts I found most fascinating:

- 5% of US energy is derived from nuclear warheads bought from Russia (the symbolism here is very powerful);
- 77% of French energy is nuclear and all its toxic waste is stored under the floor of one room (which doesn't look particularly big);
- A nuclear meltdown is impossible with fourth generation reactors;
- Chernobyl and Fukushima are still habitable;
- Background radiation is not linked to cancer risk;
- Leaking from nuclear power plants is a non-issue; less radiation than a banana;
- Early anti-nuclear and pro-solar ads were funded by the oil industry;
- Coal is still the fastest growing source of energy worldwide;
- 1 pound of uranium the size of a fingertip contains the energy of 5000 barrels of oil. (can all this energy be extracted with the recycling process in breeder reactors?)

Nice breakdown. I haven't fact checked all of these, but it seems roughly accurate (unlike some of the things in cowspiracy which I know to be incorrect).

Only this one is kind of misleading:

- Background radiation is not linked to cancer risk;

That's true from an epidemiological perspective. There are too many variables to get a signal from the noise.
However, ANY increase in radiation necessarily increases cancer risk. We know this, because we know the mechanisms. The thing is that it's just such a small increase that it's not something you could actually observe in a population (other variables like smoking, diet, and air pollution are so huge you can't properly control for them, and the cancer from background radiation disappears like a drop in an ocean: you'd probably need billions of people with perfect controls to see a difference).

This said: the same is true for bananas. They should increase your risk of cancer.

It's important to know the difference between what can be seen or measured in a population, and what mechanistic evidence suggests should exist but may not be visible due to too many variables to control for properly and the obscuring statistical nature of the effects in a small population study.

I can now start mentally preparing myself for being the teetotal pronuclear vegan in the room.

Great!

I also found a documentary called 'Catching the Sun' on Netflix, it's about solar energy and whether or not the US is ready for a transition to solar energy. Has anybody seen it? Is it worth watching?

I will try to watch it and report back if I have time.

[EquALLity]

"Thermal pollution" is true sometimes. That means it warms water up. It's not a serious issue, and doesn't present any kind of lasting contaminant.

The book spoke about that:

Some power plants and industries use water to cool their machines or materials. The warmed water is then released into a river or lake, and the water temperature in the river or lake rises. Because warm water cannot hold as much dissolved oxygen as cold water, the oxygen level in the river or lake drops as the water temperature rises. Some species may suffocate as a result of thermal pollution; others may be forced to try to find a new home.

So it disrupts ecosystems, basically. Why isn't that a lasting ecological problem?

It's just not true that disposal of nuclear wastes presents an environmental problem, because it is not disposed of: it is kept. Nuclear waste is also nuclear fuel, if it's enriched. Nobody is dumping this stuff out.

Hm. Why does the book say it's a huge problem?
I mean, it's a science review book. Could it really be biased against science?

The documentary Pandora's Promise shows the waste issue for what it is. It's on Netflix, if you have access I strongly suggest watching it.

Aw, I don't have Netflix.
I see it's on YT, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM Is that even legal?

[brimstoneSalad]

So it disrupts ecosystems, basically. Why isn't that a lasting ecological problem?

IF they dump it directly into a small lake, then it affects that lake while the plant is running. It's not a big problem (slightly affects a small area of a local environment), and it's not one that lasts after the plant is shut down. The same is true for any thermal pollution from industry and power generation (like gas or coal), where they also use water as coolant.

Can you find the issue even discussed on any Wiki page on nuclear? I've never seen it brought up.

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

It seems like the writer of the textbook is just ignorant, and making an asinine argument showing his or her biases against nuclear power.

Nuclear isn't even mentioned in the article on Thermal Pollution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_pollution

It's also an issue that is very easily overcome by cooling towers, which are a common fixture in nuclear power plants.

Hm. Why does the book say it's a huge problem?
I mean, it's a science review book. Could it really be biased against science?

It's a common anti-nuclear lie.

High school and middle school science text books are notoriously filled with inaccuracies and biased misinformation, as I mentioned in the other thread (flat earth) to Teo. University level books are better. There's no guarantee that the people who write middle and high school level books are in any way qualified.

The writer is apparently either dishonest, or an idiot who didn't bother to fact check anything put into the book. I wouldn't trust anything in that book without double checking.

What are the writers and editors names? What's the book called?
Can you complain to your school board about it?

I see it's on YT, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM Is that even legal?

Awesome! It's been up for two years, so apparently it is if nobody has bothered to take it down.
Watch it and share with your teachers and friends if you can.