WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3896
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by Red »

Make sure to offer feedback and criticism whenever necessary, this video's gotta be sweet. I'm aware it needs a lot of cleaning up in terms of organization and information.

This is just the first part of the essay, I'm hoping to have the rest or at least another part written out by tomorrow (or later today, rather; it is midnight where I am).

Oh yeah, and tell me where to get rid of any jokes. I laugh at almost all of them.

To the layman, the issue of climate change is usually either a possible inconvenience at best, and completely nonexistent at worst; The issue has made its way into the political sphere, with politicians either campaigning about it, denying it (or at least claiming to), or giving ambiguous statements about the issue. The left is generally associated as the side that wants to fight it, while the right is considered the side that denies the issue altogether.
I don’t give a damn about your politics or opinion on the matter; The point is, climate change has been scientifically proven to be a very real and imminent threat to not only our planet, but to every human and most species of animals. This video isn’t going to be all about climate change, but we’ll a give gross oversimplification of it since it is important for the context of this video.
As a species, we humans have mastered technology to increase convenience and quality of life for everyone. Oh yeah, it’s just fantastic; cars, televisions, light bulbs, phones, computers, the internet. Of course, in this day and age, these things require a catalyst to make them work; electricity. How do you get electricity? We have tons of energy sources with tons of different factors to consider, and we’ll be looking at cost, efficacy, safeness, and cleanliness of energy.
Before we continue, we must specify what we mean by cleanliness. It means a lot of things, but for the sake of time, take it to mean how much Carbon Dioxide is released into the atmosphere (chemical formula being CO2), which dissolves our ozone layer, a layer in the Earth’s atmosphere (thermosphere to be specific), which absorbs most of the UV rays that reach the Earth from the sun, the one emitting these UV rays. The Ozone Layer is essential for life on Earth, as those UV rays keep the Earth from experiencing large doses of the greenhouse effect (which keeps the Earth warmer than it would be); It is estimated that the temperatures are rising about 2-11 Fahrenheit degrees ever century. Sounds like nothing, right? Eeeeeeeeeeh, not exactly. Given how the human mind works, we tend to underestimate the impact of these things. Even a 2-11 Fahrenheit increase will cause a rise in sea levels due to melting poles, countries near the equator will be drier and subsequently have more droughts, places further from the equator (but not at the caps) will get warmer and wetter, attracting pests such as mosquitoes, diseases such as cancer will be increasingly rampant due to a weakened ozone layer, increase of droughts, and honestly, those aren’t the worst of our imminent problems.
With that crash course about climate change out of the way, let’s get back to our energy sources. When we refer to clean energy, that means energy that has little or no CO2 emissions, while dirty energy emits lotsuv ‘em. Dirty energy is usually found in the form of fossil fuels (coal, oil), and while they are dirty as hell, and are prime culprits behind climate change (other than CFCs which have been outlawed in the United States AFAIK) they are super efficient in the energy, and are generally very cheap and/or abundant in terms of resources. But again, the issue of CO2 emissions is troubling. As for safeness, coal and oil, when exposed to it for extended periods of time, can really mess up a guy’s lungs, and can cause other environmental issues, such as oil spills (though admittedly, they are often exaggerated greatly by the media), which kills many animals, and ruins a lot of homes for both animals and humans. Well, what about our cleaner sources of energy, which are often referred to as ‘renewable’ energy sources? These are usually found in the forms of solar and wind; these energies are clean as hell, rather than dirty as hell. They release no CO2 AT ALL. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Well, unless you count building the damn things, which emits CO2, but I’ll get to that later. HOWEVER, while these clean energies win in the environmental department, they are well behind in the efficacy department. We won’t be getting into all the technicalities right now, but here is something to consider; it takes a whole mile of solar panels just to have the same energy output as one coal plant. It’ll be quite difficult to use that to power an increasingly electricity dependent world. Now you might be saying “Yeah but dude, we can just build more of the things, it’s not a hard work around.” True, BUT there is also the cost issue. Installing and maintaining solar panels, and building effective windmills isn't cheap. And while solar is generally pretty safe, windmills usually aren’t, due to it killing many birds needlessly, and even humans on rare occasions. So, knowing all of this, it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation; You can’t get the clean, safe energy using fossil fuels, and you can’t get the cheap, effective energy using renewable energy!
However, what if I were to tell you that there is an energy source that meets all four of these standards in cost, efficacy, safeness, and cleanliness. “Oh!” I can hear you say “Surely you jest! What are the chances that a source of energy can be cheap, effective, safe AND clean? This is nothing more than a mere pipedream!”
Well, that’s where you’d be wrong.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
PhilRisk
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by PhilRisk »

I do not want to dissuade you from arguments about energy transition and climate change. I want to give a correction on the basic mechanism of climate change.
Hopefully my links to research are not to technical. But if you want to participate in a technical debate, there is no way out of reading and searching technical research.
I hope the given information is useful for you.
To avoid misunderstandings, I tell you, that I am not against nuclear power, I think we should expand the use of nuclear and of renewable energy. The decision of the balance is different regionally. Depending upon availability of technical support or regional availability of wind, solar, hydro, etc.
Red wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:07 am Before we continue, we must specify what we mean by cleanliness. It means a lot of things, but for the sake of time, take it to mean how much Carbon Dioxide is released into the atmosphere (chemical formula being CO2), which dissolves our ozone layer, a layer in the Earth’s atmosphere (thermosphere to be specific), which absorbs most of the UV rays that reach the Earth from the sun, the one emitting these UV rays. The Ozone Layer is essential for life on Earth, as those UV rays keep the Earth from experiencing large doses of the greenhouse effect (which keeps the Earth warmer than it would be); It is estimated that the temperatures are rising about 2-11 Fahrenheit degrees ever century.
If you really want to make a video about, make sure to understand the process of greenhouse gases. The issue of global warming is not the same as ozone depletion.
The problem of ozone depletion is for example due to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These deplete he ozone, which blocks UV rays, which is important for health issues as UV rays cause cancer. This problem is mainly solved by the Montreal protocol, controlling such gases. Even though, there seem to be some recent sources in China.
However, this problem is separated from global warming. While CFCs are greenhouse gases, the most important one is CO2. The short version of the greenhouse effect is, that it leaves incoming solar radiation through, while blocking outgoing Infrared radiation from the earth. As the concentration is changing for example by burning of fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect is enhanced and more energy is accumulated in the earth system (ocean and atmosphere).

You can read for example Wikipedia on it as introductory articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Further note on bird mortality and human mortality:
The problem of killed birds is a complicated one. Especially if different energy sources are compared. To be thorough one should mention, that coal power kills a lot of birds by emissions of pollution for example. Some data can be found here, which should not be taken at face value for sure, but as a hint for the complexity of such estimates:
https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-man ... d2a939bbb/
or
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8112000857

The last one is a research paper from 2013 and should not be taken at face value as it is controversial research. The research suggests that nuclear and wind power are on par concerning bird mortality.

For nuclear power I found a comparison to fossil fuels concerning (human) mortality, which clearly shows that nuclear is better:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3051197
Additionally I found a review on this topic:
http://www.bigthunderwindpower.ca/files ... 007%29.pdf

As far as my literature research goes, the comparison of wind power and nuclear energy is not established on this topic.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3896
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by Red »

Thanks for the response!
PhilRisk wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:19 am If you really want to make a video about, make sure to understand the process of greenhouse gases. The issue of global warming is not the same as ozone depletion.
The problem of ozone depletion is for example due to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These deplete he ozone, which blocks UV rays, which is important for health issues as UV rays cause cancer.


However, this problem is separated from global warming. While CFCs are greenhouse gases, the most important one is CO2. The short version of the greenhouse effect is, that it leaves incoming solar radiation through, while blocking outgoing Infrared radiation from the earth. As the concentration is changing for example by burning of fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect is enhanced and more energy is accumulated in the earth system (ocean and atmosphere).
Well yeah man, I know that, though I forgot to put in the outgoing radiation part. I'l try to make it a bit clearer.
PhilRisk wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:19 am Further note on bird mortality and human mortality:
The problem of killed birds is a complicated one. Especially if different energy sources are compared. To be thorough one should mention, that coal power kills a lot of birds by emissions of pollution for example. Some data can be found here, which should not be taken at face value for sure, but as a hint for the complexity of such estimates:
https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-man ... d2a939bbb/
or
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8112000857

The last one is a research paper from 2013 and should not be taken at face value as it is controversial research. The research suggests that nuclear and wind power are on par concerning bird mortality.

For nuclear power I found a comparison to fossil fuels concerning (human) mortality, which clearly shows that nuclear is better:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3051197
Additionally I found a review on this topic:
http://www.bigthunderwindpower.ca/files ... 007%29.pdf

As far as my literature research goes, the comparison of wind power and nuclear energy is not established on this topic.
This all may be true, but it's important to take into account cost effectiveness. Would you rather have 10,000 birds be killed from a source that isn't very effective, or 10,000 birds killed from a source that is very effective? I can't think of a good analogy, but remember to choose the lesser of the evils.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
PhilRisk
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by PhilRisk »

Red wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:46 pm Thanks for the response!

Well yeah man, I know that, though I forgot to put in the outgoing radiation part. I'l try to make it a bit clearer.
It is not a problem of clarity and failure to mention outgoing radiation. Ozone depleting is a separated problem from global warming. CO2 has a direct effect on the radiation balance and no relevant effect on ozone. There is no need to mention ozone at all.
Red wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:46 pm This all may be true, but it's important to take into account cost effectiveness. Would you rather have 10,000 birds be killed from a source that isn't very effective, or 10,000 birds killed from a source that is very effective? I can't think of a good analogy, but remember to choose the lesser of the evils.
The bird collisions in the linked study by Sovacoll is relative to energy generated. Cost effectiveness is separate issue from bird collisions. The economic vs environmental decisions. Do you want to highlight the importance of nuclear power on economic or on environmental grounds?

What is your source for the better cost effectiveness?
The numbers I found on Wikipedia give no clear answer in favor of nuclear power. I found £92.50/MWh for Hinkley Point C in 2023. This seems to be slightly higher than onshore wind power. I think nuclear power can play an important part in energy generation as is not volatile and less dependent upon weather conditions. However, this will become relevant in high renewable scenarios, while it is not relevant yet. The combination of nuclear and renewable energy will need storage, because conventional nuclear stations are most effective if working constantly and without adapting to demand.
If you want to argue based on better cost effectiveness you should study cost effectiveness estimates. I found Wikipedia helpful in finding resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_e ... al_Studies

It is a complicated topic. And I agree with the position that nuclear power should not be excluded from energy considerations based on fear of accidents, which do happen but are not so damaging, that the effects outbalance the utility of nuclear power. However, nuclear power is not a magic bullet to shoot global warming. Building new nuclear power stations can be more expensive than onshore wind, see for example the given Wikipedia link, and the estimate of the BEIS in the UK. Furthermore, nuclear stations may have problems competing in a volatile market with much renewable energy and volatile demand.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10272
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PhilRisk wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:03 am The numbers I found on Wikipedia give no clear answer in favor of nuclear power. I found £92.50/MWh for Hinkley Point C in 2023. This seems to be slightly higher than onshore wind power.
Onshore wind is a little cheaper, but that's not a good comparison because of intermittency. It's inferior power in most places.
If you want a fair comparison then you have to compare it to wind plus storage, and given current storage technology that is likely more expensive. Either that, or you're forced to pair it with more polluting power sources which will hopefully be off most of the time, but also have associated costs (both in terms of infrastructure, even if they're off most of the time, and environment).
PhilRisk wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:03 amFurthermore, nuclear stations may have problems competing in a volatile market with much renewable energy and volatile demand.
Cost of nuclear power does not reflect poor EROEI, but issues like safety measures and supervision along with insurance, etc.
It's EROEI that matters in environmental terms. If we have to make them state run or subsidize them to compete with more polluting power sources or those with lower energy returns, that's what we should do.

There's a table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_re ... _influence
Nuclear is over 100, and beats everything else. New reactor designs will likely be even better.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10272
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by brimstoneSalad »

@Red You should convert this into a Wiki article as you work on it. :)

Preface it with something about nuclear being the most important environmental issues aside from veganism, and that when vegans actively oppose nuclear energy they work to undo the good veganism does for the environment and appear hypocrites with respect to the environmental argument.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3896
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:05 pm @Red You should convert this into a Wiki article as you work on it. :)
Alright, if you think the general content is good enough.

I appreciate @PhilRisk for correcting me on a few things!
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:05 pmPreface it with something about nuclear being the most important environmental issues aside from veganism, and that when vegans actively oppose nuclear energy they work to undo the good veganism does for the environment and appear hypocrites with respect to the environmental argument.
Alright, I'm working on it as we speak. I'm gonna edit it a little, and also add a few images.
I just want to be sure; Would it be effective to be just Pro-Nuclear and non-vegan? Or would you not be able to do it without the other? I just want clarification before I add the beginning in.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10272
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Red wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:50 pm I just want to be sure; Would it be effective to be just Pro-Nuclear and non-vegan? Or would you not be able to do it without the other? I just want clarification before I add the beginning in.
Being pro-nuclear costs nothing but not voting and fear mongering against nuclear. That's the easy thing. So, no reason not to do it, it's even easier than vegan, you just need to get your science straight.

I don't know how the relative harm of anti-nuclear vs non-vegan would weigh. But in their respective categories of human activity nuclear power and veganism (or reducetarianism etc.) are both the most important things to advocate.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3896
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:25 pm Being pro-nuclear costs nothing but not voting and fear mongering against nuclear. That's the easy thing. So, no reason not to do it, it's even easier than vegan, you just need to get your science straight.

I don't know how the relative harm of anti-nuclear vs non-vegan would weigh. But in their respective categories of human activity nuclear power and veganism (or reducetarianism etc.) are both the most important things to advocate.
Okay, I gotcha.
I think I'll make it good as it can be, but feel free to make any edits.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3896
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: WIP Essay about Nuclear Energy

Post by Red »

I'm working on it as we speak. It may need a lot of editing at a later date (this is basically a rough draft), but we'll see how it looks in the end.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Post Reply