Damn, I love New York.
Please use this thread to discuss whatever you’d like, or to put in whatever links you like. Self-linking is encouraged.
* * *
I haven’t yet listened to the California Clinton/Obama debate, but I will be listening to it today as I draw; several people I’ve read have claimed it’s the most substantive debate of the primary so far, with a lot of focus on health care (an area where Clinton is better) and Iraq (an area where Obama is better). Part one is here, part two is here. (Or, if you prefer smaller chunks, it’s on youtube in 12 parts; part one is here.)
This is why I liked commuting to downtown Chicago when I worked there for a few years. There’s always shit happening.
That one last bit where the guy was obstructed while trying to get his job done made me think, though. Was care taken not to obstruct doorways, restrooms, etc.?
A couple of things about that…
The positions people held were amazing and the continuation of movement, when it happened, was one of the best things I’ve ever seen.
I can guarantee you that if I was in GCT at the time, I never would have noticed it.
Did you take the phone off the hook? I got a busy signal. What, no voice mail, grandpa?
As for self-linkage: I am disgusted by news that Barack Obama’s ties to the nuclear power industry has affected his short term as a legislator on Capitol Hill. He takes their money, he employs their consultants in his campaign. No wonder he thinks nuclear power is a viable alternative energy. Argh!
This is bigger than his relationship with Tony Rezko, which is one anyone in politics in Illinois, especially Chicago could have. Also, the Trib has found no evidence of “wrongdoing” between them, just shit that looks “wrong” (or “boneheaded” as Obama puts it.) But the last 7+ years of an administration with deeply entrenched ties to big energy capitalists has been a disaster for this country. I never jumped on the “hope-and-change” bandwagon, but even so I find this news dispiriting.
Kevin, you’re quite right; in Illinois politics, lots of politicians have some kind of connection like this. I don’t see that it’s commonality serves to excuse Sen. Obama, though. Understand that this is not just something that came about recently. When Obama was first running for office, his primary opponent was a self-financed millionaire candidate. So Obama went looking around for money. Rezko provided it. And continued to do so for Obama’s entire career, if I’m not mistaken. There’s lots of people in Illinois looking to buy up new up-and-coming politicians. That doesn’t mean we should excuse them from being bought, or from looking into who it is that’s offering them money.
Understand that it’s not just political; Rezko helped Obama buy his house.
If you’re seeking for someone who’ll stir up the established order to bring around change, the Illinois General Assembly is not the place to look.
Now, to the energy issue you brought up – I happen to think that nuclear energy is, in fact, an essential part of a long-term viable energy strategy for this country. Yes, there’s a waste disposal problem, but proper application of engineering principles can provide a workable solution. What’s your problem with nuclear energy? I personally think it beats the hell of of fossil fuels and their concomitant carbon release.
And just when you think that Pat Oliphant cartoon on Hillary was bad, Check THIS one out.
http://www.gocomics.com/glennmccoy/2008/02/01
Note the armbands on the barbers.
I think the waste disposal problem is big, because so far (to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, so feel free to enlighten me) I have not heard that the problem has been resolved, particularly given public NIMBY resistance to disposal of radioactive waste with a half life of thousands of years. Calling it “NIMBY” doesn’t mean that I think it’s irrational, however, because there is legitimate public distrust of the safety and quality of the disposal technology and the companies involved.
The other is national security, as nuclear facilities are vulnerable to acts of war/terrorism; Mohammad Atta has originally planned to fly his plane into the nuclear plant on Long Island, but decided against it, because he thought (wrongly) that it would be well defended.
And there is the leakage issue, that Obama’s legislation meant to address but then chickened out on. His constituents in Illinois found nuclear contaminants in their groundwater. This is troubling to me, someone who grew up near Love Canal – granted, not nuclear waste, but that’s no comfort.
Bikerdude: That is bad. At least Oliphant addressed something Clinton sort of did. (“Sort of” because she didn’t actually cry, she got a little misty, verklempft. Making her seem openly weepy is a useless exaggeration, and sexist.)
Here are the problems with nuclear power as I see them.
1) The disposal of radioactive waste. This stuff stays toxic for thousands of years. What civilization has effectively protected anything for 10,000 years? Not to mention, nuclear waste isn’t something that can be passively stored and ignored. It actually takes maintenance to keep it contained. I think that the chances of any country (never mind all countries) remaining stable enough over thousands of years to responsibly care for the waste is incredibly unlikely. Assuming, of course, that they would responsibly care for nuclear waste to begin with. We haven’t.
2) The mining & preparation of nuclear fuel is far from carbon neutral. It’s really not much of an improvement over what we do now.
3) Nuclear fuel is a non-renewable energy source. If we were to build all the nuclear plants required for that to become our main source of energy, the known sources of fuel would be exhausted in about 50 years.
4) Having lived near the Indian Point nuclear plant, I’m less than confident about the proper safeguards (automatic, human and regulatory) being in place. You couldn’t pay me enough to live anywhere near Indian Point ever again. As far as I can tell, the conditions at Indian Point are not extraordinary.
Awesome other-people linkage: V on interracial dating.
Shameless self-linkage; me on how it was cool to be fat 2200 years ago.
Jake: 1) the reason disposal is currently a problem is largely because no one thought about it when the plants that are currently being decommissioned were first built. Deep burial is the latest option, and because it’s being planned in advance it’s got a very good chance of working. One distinct worry here is that all countries that have ever built nuclear weapons on the sly have done so by diverting nuclear material from civilian power projects – I’d hope that stowing it several miles underground would make that harder to do, too.
2) Word.
3) Word.
4) Bull. You do know that by far the most dangerous source of energy is hydro-power, right? Far more people have died or been injured by hydro-plants than by nuclear plants thus far. Even natural gas stations are far from safe – remember the Buncefield explosion two years ago? Yes, nuclear power can go disastrously wrong, but this is true of all methods of power generation and additional fears about nuclear energy aren’t justified by the statistics.
Thene,
I disagree with you on point 1. Even deep burial requires maintenance. It can’t just be left alone forever. If I understand it correctly, anyway.
As to point 4… Perhaps you misunderstood my concerns. The potential long term effects of problems with nuclear power are much, much worse. Never mind all of the current leakage of radioactive material (one of the big problems at Indian Point & Yankee and, now I hear, in Illinois). The area around Chernobyl won’t be safely habitable for people for a long, long time & the effects of the escaped radiation on Ukrainians (I believe) and the effects of radiation on agriculture and those who eat those crops will also be long lasting.
Although, when talking about the dangers of nuclear plants, we’re not just talking about disasters like Chernobyl. We’re also talking about the daily leakage of radioactive liquid into our environment (water tables, in particular) and its potential damage.
(BTW, estimates of the death toll from Chernobyl range from 50 (50, not 50,000) to 400,000. The former only takes into account the deaths on site. The latter is a, probably, very high estimate taking into account additional cancer deaths caused by the radiation. The most common estimates that I see are closer to 20,000 deaths, but I don’t have know which are reputable or not.)
I’ve got some linkage. I wrote a post about the foolishness over black women voters on my journalism blog. (The foolishness of the media’s take on the voters, not on the voters themselves.)
Jake, if you’re taking deaths caused by indirect pollution effects into account, fossil fuel power is causing considerably more fatalities than nuclear. That’s what the fight against climate change is about, remember?
As for deep burial and maintenance; if you’re rating the safety of a power source on how likely it is to survive the next 10000 years, I say again – look at the alternatives and what they mean for political stability. Oil – do we even need to go there? Some UK greens are talking about the need to run solar energy up from the Sahara…as if that region were a) theirs to do with as they choose and b) so politically stable that using it as a direct source of power generation would be safe and wholesome (because drilling oil out of Africa has proved to be such a fair and wonderful industry). Similarly, the use of hydroelectric power in China is causing unrest as well as fatalities and loss of homes and land – and, since you mentioned it, water. Are these power sources going to remain safe and non-fatal for 10000 years?
You’re not going to get power without the risk of death, instability and cruelty. (Power is like most other mass-consumption products in that respect). Regarding nuclear power as fundamentally different from other forms in that regard is just giving in to hysteria. Chernobyl had politics; saying that power plant disasters, or polluted water, just happens because nuclear power is teh bad doesn’t help anyone affected by the downsides of all the other ways we generate power.
Thene, as I understood it, Jake’s point is that if there’s political instability that causes (say) a windmill farm to go unmaintained and thus break down 250 years from now, the consequences of that are low compared to what happens when nuclear waste storage goes unmaintained and thus breaks down at the same time. That seems like a reasonable point to me.
You say to be concerned with this is “hysteria,” but why is it hysteria to want to know if nuclear waste can be safely disposed of? I’m a bit on the fence concerning nuclear power, but your arguments here so far are not very persuasive to me.
Also, it really seems that if you agree with Jake on his points 2 and 3 in comment 8, then there doesn’t seem much reason to favor nuclear power regardless of if the waste problems are solvable. Am I missing something?
The nuclear fuel reserves of the Earth are vast. Uranium is a relatively common substance. At 2004 price levels, the total conventionally recoverable ore base would be enough to fuel current consumption levels for 1,500 years; there’s at least twice that much out there at more advanced technology levels.
I wouldn’t suggest an all-nuclear power economy a la France’s, because it’s a bad idea to have all our eggs in one basket. Supply of fuel, however, is not a reason to oppose nuclear power.
Well, seeing as how this is an open thread, there’s no such thing as hijacking it, right? So, here is a particular milblogger’s take on the primaries today, and why he will not only take a Democratic ballot, but will vote for Sen. Clinton:
Rather than reprint the entire posting, if you want to know why he thinks that Obama’s policies are un-American check out the link. However, if you do respond you may not get a comment from him immediately as he is on active duty in Iraq.
… the total conventionally recoverable ore base would be enough to fuel current consumption levels for 1,500 years…
I’m not disagreeing with that. But, if we build enough nuclear plants to provide the energy currently being provided by all the coal, natural gas, etc. plants… known reserves would last for 50 years. So, what you say is true and what I say is also true.
Having read the link, I guess that I do disagree with that. Geeze, Robert. I can only call your statement a lie. Why would you do that? From your link:
The world’s present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for some 70 years at current consumption.
So, I overestimated and you ludicrously overestimated, I guess.
The 1500 to 3000 years of reserves of which you write are reserves of lithium for use in a technology which does not currently exist and which we are, therefore, not currently discussing. To quote:
Fusion power commonly propose[s] the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years
So, why didn’t you claim that we had enough resources to last for 60 million years or 150 billion years? Did you think that would make your lie too obvious?
Also, if and when there is viable fusion power, the problem of high level radioactive waste, among other major problems, goes away. Unfortunately, discussions of building additional nuclear power plants today refer to fission power only.
What is wrong with you? I’m rapidly approaching the conclusion that it is impossible to have an honest discussion about anything with you.
Some UK greens are talking about the need to run solar energy up from the Sahara… as if that region were…
Ummm, yeah. I can’t disagree with that. However, the most interesting idea that I have read about recently is solar collecting satellites transferring energy to the surface via microwave(?). I haven’t read a lot about it, yet, but it did get my attention.
Jake, lithium is a completely different topic. I am not referring to lithium. I’m referring to the chart in the sidebar, which links to an NEA report – here.
The problem you’re having is this:
“The world’s present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for some 70 years at current consumption.”
You think this means that there are 70 years worth of uranium. It doesn’t. It means that there are 70 years worth of uranium in the mines and deposits we already know about (“measured”). Like oil, uranium costs money to discover. People don’t spend money before they need to; if you’re thinking in a 10-year or 50-year timeframe – and mostly we don’t think that far ahead – you don’t go out and spend billions to discover resources for your grandkids to use. You figure they’ll go out and find their own. To calculate out how much actual material is in the ground is guesswork, but educated guesswork and one where geologists have a pretty good feel for the odds.
Well, then. I apologize for my accusation. I entirely misunderstood your reference.
You think this means that there are 70 years worth of uranium.
No, I don’t. I think that this means that, currently, known reserves of uranium would last for 70 years at current levels of consumption. However, the more plants we build, the shorter the time to consume the resource. Looking at the sidebar, the estimated number of years at current levels of consumption for the estimated conventional undiscovered resources is only 300 years. If nuclear fission replaces coal, gas & oil fired plants as the main source of energy, we need to cut that number down to about 50 years.
In your comment above, you refer to 50 years as a short time frame and I agree with that assessment. I don’t believe that we’d figure out a way to exploit the additional 1200 years worth of uranium in an economically viable way within that period. I don’t believe that we’d even begin research on how to exploit those unconventional reserves until the last decade or two of that period.(ETA – I mean above and beyond what we are doing now, which is very little. We do know how to extract those unconventional reserves, but at a very high cost. We are also putting very little into researching better & cheaper methods.)
There are a lot of arguments in favor of nuclear power. Until recently, and for the last2 decades, I’ve been on the fence about nuclear power. Then I started doing more reading and discovered that, for me, the arguments against outweigh the arguments for. In particular, the limited amount of available uranium right now makes building more nuclear plants seem unproductive. Also, the concerns about long term maintenance and monitoring of waste from those plants makes the endeavor seem risky and unreliable – not because I’m worried about what will happen to me, but because I have little faith that we have the ability to be responsible stewards for the next few thousands of years. If all I cared about was my lifetime, I’d be all for nuclear power.
Of course, if viable fusion power comes along, that changes things. But, right now, when we speak of nuclear power we refer to fission and fission doesn’t seem like a good long term option to me. That doesn’t mean, IMO, that we shouldn’t continue research on better methods of fission, just that we shouldn’t be using currently available nuclear technology as part of our energy strategy.
Robert said:
How’s that working out for them, anyway? What are their electrical prices like compared to ours? And how are they dealing with the waste issue? IIRC they are using breeder reactors and are then reprocessing the waste to get out the plutonium, which they then re-use in the reactors. But they’ve been doing this for some time now, so we should have actual data instead of assumptions and predictions on how large-scale use of nuclear power is working out.
Last I checked, they were shipping the waste to Russia, which was sealing it in oil drums and dumping it in the Arctic ocean. Given that, I don’t really think it matters what their prices are.
Are you serious? If so, do you have any cites for that?
google “arctic ocean” “nuclear waste”
or
google french nuclear waste
The parts that have been documented are that the French are shipping the waste to Russia, and that the Russians either dump their waste in the ocean or store it in poorly managed concrete bunkers where it drains into the ocean. The storage of the nuclear waste has been labeled a state secret, so we can’t tell for sure the exact destination of the French nuclear waste. I suppose it’s possible that the Russians have constructed a dry, geologically stable sequestration site somewhere that they’re dreadfully ashamed to tell anyone about. I sort of doubt it, though: when government officials start trying to hide their supposedly-legitimate actions, I’m comfortable assuming that they’re up to no good.
googling “arctic ocean” and “nuclear waste” turns up a bunch of stuff on Russia dumping nuclear waste into the arctic and letting it leak into the arctic from dumps, but I couldn’t find any mention of French nuclear waste.
googling “french nuclear waste” “arctic ocean” turned up nothing that actually included both phrases.
googling “french nuclear waste” turns up discussions of France shipping waste to the US and the exceptionally poor handling of nuclear waste in France, with innumerable poorly documented, poorly maintained dumps.
If you have found actual links to actual content, please feel free to post them, but the googling suggestion turns up absolutely nothing to support your claim.
Not that the descriptions I did find were particularly reassuring, either about dumping nuclear waste in the Arctic (yup, the Russians are) no about French handling of waste (nope, they don’t have a good solution either).
Japanese nuclear waste, on the other hand, there are claims that it is getting dumped in Russia.
Wikipedia says that the French are building a deep geological facility for storage under some mountain in France. It didn’t say what they’re doing in the meantime. Renting storage lockers and “forgetting” to pay the rent, probably.
Charles, if you want to find the exact documentation that I found, then you need do the exact searches that I told you to. Include the same quoting that I did to get the same results.
Here’s one you missed because you put in quotes:
France’s nuclear waste heads to Russia: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466
Amp, you might want to look at this, seeing as you use the footnotes plugin
http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2008/02/07/2-plugin-security-bulletins/
But I love the footnotes plugin! Dammit. Grumble, mutter, scowl, kick puppy.
Oh, well, I better turn it off until they issue a fix. Thanks for letting me know.
Bjartmarr, that news story doesn’t support your claim. They’re shipping depleted uranium fuel from a plant to Russia for re-enrichment, not sealing it in oil drums and dropping it into the ocean. Not that dropping DU into the ocean would be particularly egregious on the scale of human environmental crimes, by the way. (Hmm, we dug some ore out of the ground, took out most of the radioactivity, and then dumped it back on the ground. Gaia needs those neutrons!)
Nor are the enviro sources quoted particularly impressive, particularly the moron who thinks that the army uses DU for shells because it’s carcinogenic.
Got any real backing?
IIRC they are using breeder reactors and are then reprocessing the waste to get out the plutonium, which they then re-use in the reactors.
The following is from the link provided by Robert in comment # 15:
As of December 2005, the only breeder reactor producing power is BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia. The electricity output of BN-600 is 600 MW — Russia has planned to build another unit, BN-800, at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant. Also, Japan’s Monju reactor is planned for restart (having been shut down since 1995), and both China and India intend to build breeder reactors.
Also, from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor#FBR_generating_plants ):
France
France’s first fast reactor, Rapsodie first achieved criticality in 1967. Built at Cadarache near Aix-en-Provence, Rapsodie was a loop-type reactor with a thermal output of 40MW and no electrical generation facilities, and closed in 1983.
This was followed by the 233 MWe Phénix, grid connected since 1973 and still operating, both as a power reactor and more importantly as the center of work on reprocessing of nuclear waste by transmutation.
Superphénix, 1200 MWe, entered service in 1984 and as of 2006 remains the largest FBR yet built. It was shut down in 1997 due to political commitment of the left-wing government to competitive market forces. Ironically the power plant had not produced electricity for most of the preceding ten years prior to its closure.
The plant was also a focus point of anti-nuclear political activity by the Green party and other groups. Right wing groups claim the plant was shut down for political reasons and not lack of power generation.
Bjartmarr,
I think the “google such and such” response is only valid if googling that will turn up multiple links to what you are claiming. I did google what you suggested, but did not happen to find your link.
Robert,
Depleted uranium is not less radioactive than uranium ore. It is less radioactive than purified uranium metal. That also ignores the problem of other radionucleotides contaminating the waste (not a problem for DU generated in the process of creating enriched uranium, but a huge problem in the depleted uranium in the waste from a nuclear power plant), and also ignores the problem that uranium is chemically poisonous. Also, the re-enrichment process produces 1/3 natural uranium, which can then be re-enriched to produce 1/10 fuel grade uranium and 9/10 depleted uranium. This leaves behind 29/30th depleted uranium to be dumped somewhere. This is not cost effective, or wouldn’t be if it also didn’t allow you to push the issue of dumping the depleted uranium off onto a country that has essentially no environmental enforcement. So while a tiny bit of the DU goes back to France as enriched uranium, most of the DU stays in Russia, where the waste handling is appalling. The main benefit to the French nuclear industry is getting rid of the contaminated DU, not the bit of enriched U it gets back.
The line about how the military uses DU munitions because they are carcinogenic and poisonous was funny though. Which isn’t to say they aren’t carcinogenic and poisonous, particularly when people cheat and use post reactor DU rather than post enrichment DU (which they have, because post reactor DU is something people are much more desperate to get rid of).
Robert, I coupled that story with others describing Russia’s inept storage of nuclear waste and of dumping of nuclear waste into the ocean, available by following instructions in post #23. And then I put two and two together.
But I understand that you may not want to put two and two together, which is why I acknowledged that Russia may have a secret, dry, geologically stable nuclear waste storage facility somewhere that they’re ashamed to let anybody know about. You’re welcome to believe that if you want.
Well, Charles, I tried it three times, and got the same result three times. Maybe Google just likes me better.
Q: Where do nuclear workers find jobs after getting fired for incompetence?
A: The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Can you check if you have register_globals turned off? If so then you can safely turn the plugin back on.
Can we support the troops without supporting the war?
Should we?
Amp @ #14 – I agree with two of his points, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to support a bad argument when I see one, whether or not I agree with the conclusion. I’m on the fence on this one too, and should perhaps declare an interest; I have a relative who was once a nuclear safety researcher (not employed by the industry, but working impartially at a university). His research convinced him that the process is safe unless someone screws up horribly the way they did at Chernobyl (and, I say again, you can’t divorce that particular fuck-up from the politics surrounding it – no more than you can separate Three Gorges from the politics of the current Chinese regime).
Nuclear facilities have pre-ordained lifespans of I think 50-100 years; I doubt it would be possible to build one that would still be live in 250 years. That’s a nitpick, I know, but it does mean that the lifespan and decommissioning of a nuclear plant can be planned relative to medium-term stability rather than very long-term stability. As for waste storage, I’d say that’s one of the benefits of having it in a narrow chute several miles underground. Making it as hard to retrieve as possible is part of the point of such facilities – because governments are doing this, they’re as concerned with security as environmental hazard.
I also think you’re underestimating the problems that can arise from the instability of any energy sources. (See the problems Zimbabwe, Iraq and Palestine currently have with keeping the lights on 24/7 and how much chaos and resentment that’s caused). I call the nuclear hoohah ‘hysteria’ because I think it serves to silence and belittle people who’ve suffered horribly due to the current energy system. For some reason nuclear accidents are taken as one great demon, but hydro plant and coal mine deaths, the victims of energy wars/mass displacements, and people who are denied access to energy while others have more than they need – that’s all rarely brought up in discussions about energy safety.
Bjartmarr – just because someone else is doing nuclear in a very wrong way doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it. That would be like saying we shouldn’t use hydro power because of Three Gorges.
another cool link: Brad Hicks on lynching as an economic crime. (I’d read a little about this topic before, but rarely heard it put so concisely).
Brownfemipower has some great posts as usual.
I’ve been lurking there lately because unfortunately, I haven’t been able to comment on some wordpress blogs. I’m not sure why, I just get an error message that just says “page not found”.
Jake, I was under the impression that the main point of reprocessing spent fuel was neither to obtain secondary fuel or “hot potato” it (though those may be desirably added benefits to governments) but to remove transuranic metals so that all that remains is low level waste. As such, the relevant time scale is more like 100-200 years, not 10,000.
I don’t know enough about fast breeder reactors to comment. I’ll do some research and get back on that.
Leaked tritium is perhaps the only hazard I can think of associated with fusion. It decays too fast to present the same problems as spent nuclear waste, but tritium could potentially react with oxygen in the atmosphere. At the troposphere, this could mean the formation of some poisonous water in the clouds. Higher up, reaction with free oxygen radicals could affect the ozone. It might be better to contain the stuff.
Robert Writes:
February 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
(Hmm, we dug some ore out of the ground, took out most of the radioactivity, and then dumped it back on the ground. Gaia needs those neutrons!)
more like:
we dug some ore out of the ground, which contained radioactive isotopes in comparatively low concentrations, and which was (usually) localized to a particular area and which may not have even been on the surface of the Earth. It was also ore, which in its natural format tends not to be consumed by many people.
Then we concentrated the ore. Sometimes, we also enriched it. We created something that was much more dangerous w/r/t volume. It’s not an issue of neutrons, it’s an issue of how they’re delivered, and where, and to whom.
I don’t get burned by the sun in 10 minutes. But i have a 12×12″ Fresnel lens that’d char my arm in short order. Concentration matters.