[wikileaks] US and China allied to stop anti-climate change

[Skgoa]

You're at more risk from living next to a coal plant than a nuclear one. But your goalpost shifting is amusing.

Oh, coal plants produce a statistically significant increase in cancers and birth defects in the area around them, to?


Even if we assume that all claims of nuclear proponents are true, I would just like to direct your attention to the fact that uranium is mined in the third world by child slaves under inhumane conditions. No, I don't have a source for that, since I generally don't debate nuke wankers. For what its worth, I got that from a big english language news website. But I don't want to claim it was the BBC and then be proven wrong, since I am not sure.

[LaCroix]

So what? Nobody ever said getting nuclear plants approved was a fast process and I already said red tape was the biggest hurdle.

And I said I will applause once they MANAGE to get that approval.

Right now, the concept is ok, but the rest is nothing but hot air. I withhold my applause until it is deployed, but I don't think I can get behind the idea of a nuclear reactor in a small town, guarded by Joe Watchman.

Why not? They're going to be buried underground and completely sealed.

We will see when/if they ever get installed anywhere. So far, there is nothing but talk to talk about. Burying is an hurdle to tampering, but I prefer nuclear sites to be heavily guarded. Call me old-fashioned.

[General Zod]

Oh, coal plants produce a statistically significant increase in cancers and birth defects in the area around them, to?

I'm not exactly sure why you're laughing

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

Even if we assume that all claims of nuclear proponents are true, I would just like to direct your attention to the fact that uranium is mined in the third world by child slaves under inhumane conditions. No, I don't have a source for that, since I generally don't debate nuke wankers. For what its worth, I got that from a big english language news website. But I don't want to claim it was the BBC and then be proven wrong, since I am not sure.

If you're not going to bother sourcing it then don't bother claiming it. But if you're going to dismiss my arguments as wank because I'm pro nuke then kindly get fucked.

[Bakustra]

You're at more risk from living next to a coal plant than a nuclear one. But your goalpost shifting is amusing.

Oh, coal plants produce a statistically significant increase in cancers and birth defects in the area around them, to?


Even if we assume that all claims of nuclear proponents are true, I would just like to direct your attention to the fact that uranium is mined in the third world by child slaves under inhumane conditions. No, I don't have a source for that, since I generally don't debate nuke wankers. For what its worth, I got that from a big english language news website. But I don't want to claim it was the BBC and then be proven wrong, since I am not sure.

The Environmental Defense Fund conducted a study of 88 coal power plants around the world that receive international funding determined that between 6000 and 10000 people each year are killed by the emissions of those plants, by cancer, heart ailments, and respiratory disease. This is just deaths, not any other health burdens. The majority of mercury pollution in fish is released by coal-fired power plants. Tuna is a common food fish, and mercury causes brain damage. There's your birth defects and cancer. So, do 88 nuclear power plants directly kill thousands a year?

[Samuel]

I would just like to direct your attention to the fact that uranium is mined in the third world by child slaves under inhumane conditions. No, I don't have a source for that, since I generally don't debate nuke wankers. For what its worth, I got that from a big english language news website. But I don't want to claim it was the BBC and then be proven wrong, since I am not sure.

The Nambia mine is done by Rossing and it employes about 1000 people. While they might have been accused of treating their workers poorly in the past there are no accusations of slave labor.
http://www.rossing.com/employees.htm

Apparently you don't use slaves to operate heavy machinary used to extract dangerous materials. It is the same reason that the South African diamond and gold mines use free labor. Plus there is the fact that government and large companies are the market and they tend not to favor fly by night operations that slavers tend to offer.

[aerius]

Even if we assume that all claims of nuclear proponents are true, I would just like to direct your attention to the fact that uranium is mined in the third world by child slaves under inhumane conditions. No, I don't have a source for that, since I generally don't debate nuke wankers. For what its worth, I got that from a big english language news website. But I don't want to claim it was the BBC and then be proven wrong, since I am not sure.

You do realize that Canada & Australia are the world's largest producers of uranium. While I'm sure there's uranium mining going on in Africa or some other shithole country using child slave labour, that ain't where most of the uranium coming from.

[Kane Starkiller]

Regarding the practicality of wind power US does have a theoretical potential to replace its entire power needs (3,350GW) with wind power however windturbines cost about $2 million per MW of nominal capacity. So increasing US wind power to 3,350GW (which would require 8,375GW nominal capacity assuming 40% gross capacity factor) would cost $16.75 trillion or $335 billion per year for the next 50 years.

[mr friendly guy]

Now its true that wind power per capita is low for say China, but their total energy usage per capita is also low. Now if they increased their energy usage without increasing the contribution from carbon neutral sources I would get worried.

Aren't they opening new coal plants? Point is I rather see China as a nation that is unwilling to protect the environment per se, but rather seeks to get as many energy sources as possible.

They are opening new coal plants. According to the New York times they are requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build. The article talks about the new efficient ones.

I also agree that China is keeping its options open in terms of energy sources. Ironically this might allow them to do more than some countries which you could argue cares more about climate change, because it means they are embracing the nuclear option. My own country is quite ambivalent towards non polluting nuclear with a strong environmental lobby going nuclear is bad, mmkay. I dare say they are embracing nuclear more than say... Germany if those recent anti nuclear protesters are anything to go by. I am going to hazard a guess that it will be politically unfeasible for your government to open new nuclear plants even if they wanted to.

Just on a side note, Germany invented the awesome pebble bed reactor, but it got shut down because of anti-nuclear sentiment. So the technology was sold to China who have built a prototype and some are seeing a place for the smaller, modular and can't explode reactor in the Chinese market in the near future.

[Hamstray]

Since the topic is on nuclear power and there is mention of John Kerry in the original post, does anyone remember the IFR issue? I don't know how biased this article is but if anyone is interested:

The anti-IFR forces were led by John Kerry. He was the principal speaker and the floor manager of the anti forces in the Senate debate. He spoke at length, with visual aids; he had been well prepared. His arguments against the merits of the IFR were not well informed—and many were clearly wrong. But what his presentation lacked in accuracy it made up in emotion. He attacked from many angles, but principally he argued proliferation dangers from civilian nuclear power.

While all serious weapons development programs everywhere in the world have always taken place in huge laboratories, in specialized facilities, behind walls of secrecy, and there has been negligible involvement with civilian nuclear power, it is impossible to argue that there CAN be none. For this reason the IFR processes were specifically designed to further minimize such possibilities, and, if developed, they would have represented a significant advance over the present situation. This did not slow Senator Kerry, as he went through the litany of anti-nuclear assertions, articulately and confidently.

[The Dark]

Can the U.S. keep that growth percentage though?

There are hard physical limits to wind power that might prevent it. You can build a nuclear power plant anywhere, but not every location is suitable for a wind farm.

All you need is a plot of land with somewhat steady wind for a wind farm, or a coast for off-shore wind farms. Both are abundant in the US, but political will isn't.

For a nuclear plant, you need a big stream of water nearby to feed the cooling tower, no hurricanes/tornadoes and no earthquakes. Oh, and no preferably no population centers too close nearby. That makes the list of places shrink quite a lot in the US...

Bullshit. Crystal River 3 has been operating since 1977 and has survived multiple hurricanes.

[LaCroix]

For a nuclear plant, you need a big stream of water nearby to feed the cooling tower, no hurricanes/tornadoes and no earthquakes. Oh, and no preferably no population centers too close nearby. That makes the list of places shrink quite a lot in the US...

Bullshit. Crystal River 3 has been operating since 1977 and has survived multiple hurricanes.

True, but rational people prefer to not build such expensive plants in Tornado Alley.

[General Zod]

For a nuclear plant, you need a big stream of water nearby to feed the cooling tower, no hurricanes/tornadoes and no earthquakes. Oh, and no preferably no population centers too close nearby. That makes the list of places shrink quite a lot in the US...

Bullshit. Crystal River 3 has been operating since 1977 and has survived multiple hurricanes.

True, but rational people prefer to not build such expensive plants in Tornado Alley.

Rational people are capable of designing plants able to survive extreme weather conditions . . . just like the one The Dark mentioned.

[LaCroix]

Rational people are capable of designing plants able to survive extreme weather conditions . . . just like the one The Dark mentioned.

Just give me a call when those rational people have invented the indestructible power line to connect to the indestructible reactor.
And the indestructible houses to be built for people living in Tornado/Hurricane locations. Along with other things that certainly do come cheap in construction...

But you are right... You CAN build a reactor almost everywhere. It's just not... rational... to build a very expensive power plant in a place you know it will be exposed to extreme weather conditions in a rather predictable manner.

[General Zod]

Rational people are capable of designing plants able to survive extreme weather conditions . . . just like the one The Dark mentioned.

Just give me a call when those rational people have invented the indestructible power line to connect to the indestructible reactor.
And the indestructible houses to be built for people living in Tornado/Hurricane locations. Along with other things that certainly do come cheap in construction...

But you are right... You CAN build a reactor almost everywhere. It's just not... rational... to build a very expensive power plant in a place you know it will be exposed to extreme weather conditions in a rather predictable manner.

The only thing that's not rational is your bullshit scaremongering.

[Bakustra]

For a nuclear plant, you need a big stream of water nearby to feed the cooling tower, no hurricanes/tornadoes and no earthquakes. Oh, and no preferably no population centers too close nearby. That makes the list of places shrink quite a lot in the US...

Bullshit. Crystal River 3 has been operating since 1977 and has survived multiple hurricanes.

True, but rational people prefer to not build such expensive plants in Tornado Alley.

Depending on how you define "Tornado Alley", that would require banning nuclear power plants from anywhere but the East and West coasts of the US. There's no firm definition, but in general, tornado alleys in the US occur between the Rockies and Appalachians. Even with the narrowest definition (the central Great Plains), there are four or five nuclear plants in Tornado Alley. So I suppose that harsh weather is not quite the hindrance to nuclear power you believe, and the question of powerlines would only be satisfactorily resolved by adopting a fully-distributed power system, an unlikely proposition even assuming practicality.

[Beowulf]

Rational people are capable of designing plants able to survive extreme weather conditions . . . just like the one The Dark mentioned.

Just give me a call when those rational people have invented the indestructible power line to connect to the indestructible reactor.
And the indestructible houses to be built for people living in Tornado/Hurricane locations. Along with other things that certainly do come cheap in construction...

But you are right... You CAN build a reactor almost everywhere. It's just not... rational... to build a very expensive power plant in a place you know it will be exposed to extreme weather conditions in a rather predictable manner.

There is no weather condition extreme enough to rival a jet fighter at high speed. Nuclear containment domes are designed to withstand exactly that.

[The Dark]

Rational people are capable of designing plants able to survive extreme weather conditions . . . just like the one The Dark mentioned.

Just give me a call when those rational people have invented the indestructible power line to connect to the indestructible reactor.
And the indestructible houses to be built for people living in Tornado/Hurricane locations. Along with other things that certainly do come cheap in construction...

But you are right... You CAN build a reactor almost everywhere. It's just not... rational... to build a very expensive power plant in a place you know it will be exposed to extreme weather conditions in a rather predictable manner.

What the fuck is this strawmanning? People most certainly live in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and the other states with high tornado incidence rates. Power lines aren't reinforced because they're cheap and easy to build. Houses have construction codes to restrict damage (due to Hurricane Andrew, Miami has pretty much the toughest building codes in the country. I've done house construction a little further north in Florida, and the amount of reinforcement is pretty high - every square joint is reinforced with metal strapping with at least six nails. That's in addition to the two or three used in joining each wood-to-wood surface. And that's for a weaker building code than what Miami-Dade uses. Everything down there - doors, windows, walls - must withstand a 9 pound wood beam shot at 50 feet per second into it. After the hit, wind and rain are simulated to ensure it's still structurally intact. For tornadoes, the ICC and FEMA define "near-absolute protection" for safe rooms as being able to resist a 15 pound beam shot at 147 feet per second. US reactors could withstand a 400,000 pound projectile traveling at 510 feet per second. They grossly exceed the most stringent building code for resisting either hurricanes or tornadoes. It's just not... rational... to spout off without doing basic research.