Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 23, 2018 2:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 3:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
This is my rebuttal to the short form of Beyond Nuclear's document with the subject title.

Comments please.

=================================

It seems indicative of the intellectual honesty of the breed (anti-nukes) that the main claim against the film "Pandora's Promise" is that it doesn't give enough of the opposition side, yet the facebook page that produced the linked document removes anyone who provides the opposition side too well.
** = "Pandora's False Promises" (verbatim)
>> = My comments thereon.

============

** Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition.

>> Nuclear power is the only technology that has demonstrated both a very rapid growth rate (France went from about 0% to about 80% in about 1 decade), and an ability to support a technological civilization. It is our only real hope to eliminate CO2 and other GHGs in a timely manner.

It is not the point of this comment to discuss the issue of whether it is necessary to eliminate CO2 and GHGs.

============

** So-called “Generation IV” reactor designs, including “fast” or “small modular reactors,” are the last gasp of a failing industry. Earlier versions of the fast breeder reactor were commercial failures and safety disasters. The ever soaring costs make nuclear power a financial quagmire for investors, and expensive new prototypes commercially unattractive.

>> "Last gasp" is nonsense. The entire bullet is totally immaterial since other GEN IV reactors like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor are coming into play and have the ability to accomplish what the IFR wants to do in an inherently stable, walk away safe manner, cheaply and cleanly too.

============

** Proponents of the Integral Fast Reactor, overlook the exorbitant costs; proliferation risks; that it theoretically “transmutes,” rather than eliminates, radioactive waste; that it is decades away from deployment; and that its use of sodium as a coolant can lead to fires and explosions.

>> See comment re LFTRs above.

============

** The continued daily use of nuclear power means continued risk of radiation exposure to surrounding populations, especially children who are vulnerable to leukemia when living close to reactors. Ionizing radiation released by nuclear power plants, either routinely or in large amounts, causes cellular damage and mutations in DNA, which in turn can lead to cancers and other illnesses.

>> There have been MANY studies of health around nuclear power plants conducted in many countries. Only ONE, a study in Germany, show any correlation between living in proximity to a NPP and childhood leukimia. But the study specifically says it was not the radioactive releases from the plants since they were too low. It failed to note that in Germany, NPPs are often next to coal PPs. Might there be a link there?


============

** Low-ball health predictions after nuclear accidents are not reliable. The 2005 IAEA/WHO Chernobyl health report has been discredited for suppressing key data to justify low death predictions that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, the IAEA has a mandate to promote nuclear technology. Given the long latency period of cancers caused by radiation exposure, it is too soon to accurately predict the ultimate health impacts from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, although some health effects are already being observed.

>> "It is too soon to accurately predict...", yet anti-nuke activists predict absurdly high mortality numbers all the time.
The biological phenomenon called hormesis would suggest that the final result of both Chernobyl and Fukushima will be a DECREASE in cancers and related diseases. Indeed, the current cancer rates in the Chernobyl area are LOWER than comparable cancer rates in the United States. Chernobyl MAY end up saving lives.

============

** The example of Germany — and numerous studies — demonstrates that both coal and nuclear can be phased out in favor of renewable energy. Jobs are more plentiful and enduring in the renewable sector. In Germany, renewable energy already employs 380,000 people compared to 30,000 in the nuclear sector.

>> What Germany demonstrates is the reliance on the unreliables called wind and solar results in very high prices, unstable electrical grids, angry neighbors, and hundreds of thousands of people going without power since it is too expensive. The unreliables are a "rich man's game" that leaves the rest of us in the dark.

============

** The argument that only nuclear provides “carbon-free,” base load energy is out of date. Geothermal and offshore wind energy are capable of delivering reliable base load power with a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear energy. Energy efficiency is also an essential component in displacing nuclear and coal.

>> Nuclear power is as carbon free as wind given the use of centrifugal enrichment rather than diffusion enrichment that the US used to rely on. It is the PFP document that is out of date. Further, though geothermal has the capability to be a baseload source, it doesn't have the capacity to run the world. And while wind MAY have the capacity, it does not have the capability to provide the reliable baseload/dispatchable power our civilization wants.

=============

In closing, the document "Pandora's False Promises" is too loaded with false statements and irrelavencies to be of any value in a meaningful discussion of the issues.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
The quality of a piece can often be inferred by the quality of its critiques.

In this case, the critique "pandora's False Promises" are so patently pathetic, wrong, and shallow, it is a testiment to the high quality of Pandora's Promise.

Is it just me or did I not read a single statement in the False Promises critique that is both correct and a full truth?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
This one is fun to run some numbers on because it is a typical dishonest tactic from anti-nukes:

Quote:
** Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition.


As Kiteman mentioned, France got to 80% nuclear in a decade or so. Germany is the worlds biggest user of brown coal, the dirtiest type of coal. More than half of its power came from coal this year, and still growing.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/elect ... t-26089429

Whenever stupid greens cite Germany as a success story, call them out of this coal consumption.

Apart from that, the notion that we can't build 1000 nuclear powerplants in 40 years is taken out of context.

1000x 1.5 GWe = 1500 GWe of nuclear, averaging 1350 GWe @ 90% capacity factor (typical global future average).

How many solar panels are needed to produce such an amount of electricity?

At 15% capacity factor (typical global future average), 9000 GWe of solar panels would have to be installed.

So 1500 GWe of nuclear is prohibitive, but 9000 GWe of solar panels is easy?

The biggest panels on the market are about 250 Watts. So that would mean 36,000,000,000 solar panels.

That's thirty-six-billion solar panels.

If a thousand nuclear plants is prohibitive, then what does that make 36 billion solar panels? For every nuclear plant, you'd need 36 million solar panels.

Imagine producing that, distributing that, installing that, cleaning that. Disposing of all that e-waste later on (imagine a pile of e-waste from 36 billion solar panels).

We're not even talking about energy storage here, of which the solar panels need orders of magnitude more than the nuclear plants would to make it apples to apples.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Hi folks. When I asked for comments I meant about my write-up to improve it, as in, specific editorials. Please??

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
Ok here goes.

Quote:
** Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition.

>> Nuclear power is the only technology that has demonstrated both a very rapid growth rate (France went from about 0% to about 80% in about 1 decade), and an ability to support a technological civilization. It is our only real hope to eliminate CO2 and other GHGs in a timely manner.


Good reference to France. Add that the 1000 nuclear plants of 1.5 GW electrical each is equivalent to 30 billion solar panels and 300 billion car batteries worth of energy storage. That gets the point of scaling across since the above is a standard anti-nuclear tactic of saying something big without context.

Quote:
** So-called “Generation IV” reactor designs, including “fast” or “small modular reactors,” are the last gasp of a failing industry. Earlier versions of the fast breeder reactor were commercial failures and safety disasters. The ever soaring costs make nuclear power a financial quagmire for investors, and expensive new prototypes commercially unattractive.

>> "Last gasp" is nonsense. The entire bullet is totally immaterial since other GEN IV reactors like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor are coming into play and have the ability to accomplish what the IFR wants to do in an inherently stable, walk away safe manner, cheaply and cleanly too.


Be more specific. Mention that not a single member of the public has been killed or even injured by any Gen IV prototype. Mention nuclear is cheaper than renewables+storage. Mention prototype cost is always high due to development costs, increased instrumentation, reduced capacity factor, and suchk, so that it is no indicator of the cost of a large commercial facility.

Quote:
** Proponents of the Integral Fast Reactor, overlook the exorbitant costs; proliferation risks; that it theoretically “transmutes,” rather than eliminates, radioactive waste; that it is decades away from deployment; and that its use of sodium as a coolant can lead to fires and explosions.


Mention that proliferation and waste are complete non-problems technically and are made up by the anti nuclear movement to have buckshot one liners to yell.

Quote:
** The continued daily use of nuclear power means continued risk of radiation exposure to surrounding populations, especially children who are vulnerable to leukemia when living close to reactors. Ionizing radiation released by nuclear power plants, either routinely or in large amounts, causes cellular damage and mutations in DNA, which in turn can lead to cancers and other illnesses.

>> There have been MANY studies of health around nuclear power plants conducted in many countries. Only ONE, a study in Germany, show any correlation between living in proximity to a NPP and childhood leukimia. But the study specifically says it was not the radioactive releases from the plants since they were too low. It failed to note that in Germany, NPPs are often next to coal PPs. Might there be a link there?


More specifically, the German nuclear plants are in industrial areas with things like refineries, chemical plants etc. close by and many of these produce known carcinogens and leukemia producing chemicals . Most notably benzene from refineries which is scientifically provent to cause increased leukemia in children. The nuclear plant emits no benzene, but is built close by to generate electricity for the refinery (need lots of electricity) along with coal plants.

Quote:
** Low-ball health predictions after nuclear accidents are not reliable. The 2005 IAEA/WHO Chernobyl health report has been discredited for suppressing key data to justify low death predictions that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, the IAEA has a mandate to promote nuclear technology. Given the long latency period of cancers caused by radiation exposure, it is too soon to accurately predict the ultimate health impacts from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, although some health effects are already being observed.

>> "It is too soon to accurately predict...", yet anti-nuke activists predict absurdly high mortality numbers all the time.
The biological phenomenon called hormesis would suggest that the final result of both Chernobyl and Fukushima will be a DECREASE in cancers and related diseases. Indeed, the current cancer rates in the Chernobyl area are LOWER than comparable cancer rates in the United States. Chernobyl MAY end up saving lives.


Mention that people in Belarus (near Chernobyl) have the lowest age-compensated cancer rates of all territories further away (and I believe even of all of Europe but have to check that).

Quote:
** The example of Germany — and numerous studies — demonstrates that both coal and nuclear can be phased out in favor of renewable energy. Jobs are more plentiful and enduring in the renewable sector. In Germany, renewable energy already employs 380,000 people compared to 30,000 in the nuclear sector.

>> What Germany demonstrates is the reliance on the unreliables called wind and solar results in very high prices, unstable electrical grids, angry neighbors, and hundreds of thousands of people going without power since it is too expensive. The unreliables are a "rich man's game" that leaves the rest of us in the dark.


Mention that Germany gets more than half of its power from dirty coal plants. Mention that it is the biggest user, and growing, of the dirtiest type of coal, brown coal, in the world (bigger user than China and the USA). Mention that Germany gets almost all its power from fossil fuels (coal gas oil) even though it has had decades and hundred billion euro investment in renewables.

Quote:
** The argument that only nuclear provides “carbon-free,” base load energy is out of date. Geothermal and offshore wind energy are capable of delivering reliable base load power with a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear energy. Energy efficiency is also an essential component in displacing nuclear and coal.

>> Nuclear power is as carbon free as wind given the use of centrifugal enrichment rather than diffusion enrichment that the US used to rely on. It is the PFP document that is out of date. Further, though geothermal has the capability to be a baseload source, it doesn't have the capacity to run the world. And while wind MAY have the capacity, it does not have the capability to provide the reliable baseload/dispatchable power our civilization wants.


Wind isn't baseload, that's demonstrably and obviously false. Geothermal is baseload, but is not large enough in resource to supply even 10% of the world's electricity. Geothermal also produces radionuclides leached from the ground. Mention that geothermal is nuclear power (decay of radionuclides in the ground keep it hot enough to generate power in some limited locations).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
I want to give you comments that will help you reach a larger audience and click more with uninformed people. I know and you know that your message has a small audience because it relies on the audience being intelligent, understanding, attentive, and able to throw away the misinformation that is spewed daily in usa tv, radio, newspaper, and even "popular" online sites.

I think you are doing good work, but I am afraid your not "flushing" the garbage misinformation, fast enough. There is some idea in counter propaganda...DO NOT GET TIED TO THEIR PROPAGANDA.

YOU MUST NOT DWELL ON WHAT THEY SAY. FLUSH THEIR MISINFORMATION AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. DO NOT OPENLY DISCUSS IT.

You are trying an academic type argument without going for the jugular, snappy counter-reply. I assume this is the document you wish to discredit..http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/pa ... omises.pdf

Attack them for what they are, a coal lobbyist. Show pictures of people suffering coal lung. Show pictures of blown up windmills, show solar panels destroyed by wind, show in pictures what is wrong with their idea. show little stunted men covered in coal dust. Show the poverty that exists for coal miners. Show bp oil spill birds. Then, show the fuckload of devistation in japan. show the bodies of the dead in the tsunami, on each tsunami picture, show 8800 died in tsunami -- 0 died from radation. Show coal exhaust and side by side kids suffering from lukemia...

SPICE >>YOUR LONG TECHNOBABBLE>> BETWEEN GRAPHIC PICTURES. YOUR AUDIENCE MUST BE THE UNIFORMED MASSES.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
KitemanSA wrote:

>> Nuclear power is as carbon free as wind given the use of centrifugal enrichment rather than diffusion enrichment that the US used to rely on. It is the PFP document that is out of date. Further, though geothermal has the capability to be a baseload source, it doesn't have the capacity to run the world. And while wind MAY have the capacity, it does not have the capability to provide the reliable baseload/dispatchable power our civilization wants.


You could also mention that areas where geothermal power is most commonly used are often seismically active and there have already been links with geothermal power development and increased earthquake activity.

http://news.ucsc.edu/2013/07/geothermal ... uakes.html

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/ ... d=36967768

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/11/200515289 ... arthquakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
The biological phenomenon called hormesis would suggest that the final result of both Chernobyl and Fukushima will be a DECREASE in cancers and related diseases.


I think it's maybe too provocant to say it that way. There are lot of people, websites and even TV's documentaries who say exactly the contrary ( that childrens are sick, animal's malformation rate is a lot higher, ...).

I don't know who is right but you should have a lot of proofs and evidences to counter your opponents. You should also be prepared to be insulted (often happens to me when I promote nuclear power even if I am always polite).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
Quote:
The biological phenomenon called hormesis would suggest that the final result of both Chernobyl and Fukushima will be a DECREASE in cancers and related diseases.


That seems likely for Fukushima where excessive precautions were taken evacuating people.

It hardly seems likely for Chernobyl where they didn't even protect the children against 131I in milk. I don't think it serves us well to mix Chernobyl with Fukushima or Three Mile Island. I would generally push to keep Chernobyl out of the discussion since that isn't relevant to any discussion of new build reactors anywhere.

BUT if folks want to include Chernobyl then in such a discussion one must also include the massive failures of other technologies as well (dams, chemical waste dumps for wind mills and solar panels, even massive kills by naturally stored CO2).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
That seems likely for Fukushima where excessive precautions were taken evacuating people.


It's seems to me that anti-nukes people talk mainly about the bad effects of Cs134, Cs137 and Sr90. So you should be prepared to discuss about the effects of these radionucleides in Chernobyl and Fukushima.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
fab wrote:
Quote:
That seems likely for Fukushima where excessive precautions were taken evacuating people.


It's seems to me that anti-nukes people talk mainly about the bad effects of Cs134, Cs137 and Sr90. So you should be prepared to discuss about the effects of these radionucleides in Chernobyl and Fukushima.


Once you start defending their talking points you lost the game.

COAL , COAL MINING, COAL LUNG, AND COAL ASH HAVE KILLED 10 times MORE PEOPLE THAN ALL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS COMBINED.

Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century,[17] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[18] Open cut hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions; underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_minin ... _to_miners


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
I agree. Peanut butter has killed several orders of magnitude more people than Cs-134, Cs-137, and Sr-90 combined. It is not useful to discuss the risk of these radionuclides. It is more useful to discuss a ban on peanut butter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Cyril R wrote:
I agree. Peanut butter has killed several orders of magnitude more people than Cs-134, Cs-137, and Sr-90 combined. It is not useful to discuss the risk of these radionuclides. It is more useful to discuss a ban on peanut butter.


Before you ban peanut butter at least let us ban people drinking ethanol. ETHANOL IS FUEL NOT FOOD.

Thousands of young, stupid children in America, as well as other countries, consume the gasoline additive ethanol, to get "high".
While I realize it is difficult to get hold of ethanol, it won't stop until ethanol is outlawed completely.

Ethanol is a fuel, poisonous and deadly. It is not something to "get high on" nor should it be used "to get wasted".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
I agree. Peanut butter has killed several orders of magnitude more people than Cs-134, Cs-137, and Sr-90 combined.


Yes but you will have to convince people about that. You know guys that it's a psychological issue.

And you will maybe have to respond to some people who say the contrary, like this one in a conference of New York Academy of medicine :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgnBqBJZNc


Last edited by fab on Dec 04, 2013 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
fab wrote:
Quote:
I agree. Peanut butter has killed several orders of magnitude more people than Cs-134, Cs-137, and Sr-90 combined.


Yes but you will have to convince people about that. You know guys that it's a psychological issue.

And you will maybe have to respond to some people who say the contrary, like this one in a conference of New York Academy of medicine :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgnBqBJZNc


A single moron can state more lies than 10 wise man can rebut.

Don't bother with anything sponsored by the "Helen Caldicott Foundation".

We need to focus our attention to the masses. Not to these religious morons with their infinite lies (LNT, irrelevant facts, etc.). Don't waste your time with fantatics. That's not where the gain is to be had.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group