Bill Nye on nuclear

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu May 18, 2017 3:58 am

Wow, that's​ lame, even by your standards.

They are NOT SAFE FOR CONSUMPTION, as determined by local health departments.
30 years after a nuclear disaster people still have to worry about contaminated food.

So you are saying that what is currently considerd safe levels are set to low? That people should eat food with more than 10x the limit?

Lance, please realize that you have only very narrow information about the effects of nuclear power, as you've obviously had never heard about food contamination in Europe before.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 18, 2017 5:16 am

EM

Remember I have not been able to read your first reference. The second said nothing more than make the ridiculous assertion that radioactive pigs are wandering around Europe.

But I think that you are, frankly, not much of a skeptic. You are prepared to believe anything an ignorant journalist says, without even requiring scientific data.

Nor is 'worry about contaminated food' necessarily a reflection of a genuine problem. As far as I know, this is just more paranoia. Finagle knows that enough paranoia circulates around anything to with radioactive substances.

I will try to download your first reference, but so far, it eludes me.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu May 18, 2017 5:35 am

They discovered that nearly half of the 614 pigs inspected between 2014 and 2016 were too radioactive to eat.


That isn't a reporter speaking, that is the Health Department, the equivalent of the FDA, making a statement: if they had sold those pigs, they could be criminally charged.
But if this is not enough for you, it is YOUR JOB to check that it's not important, not mine, since it is you who claims that this is not an issue.


Lance, you are truly being dishonest with any other source but your own. You seem to not give a f*'k about real-world consequences that don't fit into your idealized view of nuclear power.

Now, on a different note, VOX has put up a video about nuclear power you might or might not like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k

which mostly confirms what I already said: current nuclear power is dead in all but name, and until we have better systems it will stay that way.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 18, 2017 7:20 am

EM

I still have not seen any data. This may be because I have not been able to download your reference, but as things are right now, I have nothing to reply to, except the second reference, which was nonsense.

Your VOX video is sensible, and agrees with my position. They stated clearly that the biggest problem with nuclear energy is people. ie. politics. The new technologies they are working on have enormous potential.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu May 18, 2017 8:10 am

Lance, get of your high horse and google it yourself:
if you trust that nuclear power is so safe, you shouldn't be so afraid of what you will find.

I already told you, and any extra search will tell you: the limit exceeded by more than 10x in many cases, which is 600bq/kg.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/w ... ctive-eat/


And no, the video directly contradicts your assertions in many ways.

Lance, you are not a credible discussion partner, since you are unwilling to endanger your fixed views without being forced to do so.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 18, 2017 7:58 pm

When you say 'more than 10X', I assume you are talking government set limits?

Like most people, you probably have no idea what that means, so I will tell you. Government limits are usually 1% of the NOAEL. The NOAEL is the no observable adverse effect limit. That is, the maximum dose that can be shown to cause no measurable harm.

So when something is 10X, what this really means is one tenth of a dose already shown to be harmless.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 18, 2017 9:15 pm

I must be pretty stupid because I read EM's post as saying the reported exposures were 10 times more than the supposed safe level.

Words.

What ya gonna do?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri May 19, 2017 6:04 am

Lance, you are completely missing the point, which is why your protests about irrational people is understandable but at the same time laughable.

So again my simple question: would YOU eat food known to be radioactively contaminated with 10x the limit considered safe for human food?
Would you let your children eat it?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 19, 2017 8:09 pm

For a start, it is not ten times what is considered safe. It is one tenth of what has been demonstrated to be harmless using empirical laboratory studies. Now, admittedly that could have been done on a laboratory animal. But the government set so called safe levels are actually a political decision, to cover the arses of the politicians. They put in a one hundred fold margin of error tomake sure they can never, ever, be found wrong. This is politics. Not science.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 20, 2017 4:49 am

Evasion, evasion.

It IS 10x what is considered safe BY LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES.

And again, I guess you have no issue with feeding your children with this?

The problem you really, REALLY work hard to ignore is bio-accumulation: we are NOT talking about single dosage here: the boars get radioactively hot because they accumulate the radiation that before have been accumulated by the mushrooms.
People on a regular diet of contaminated foods DO accumulate them, steadily increasing their exposure to radioactivity.

We expect the same to happen in the case of Fukoshima, where it will take another 30 years for the leaked radioactivity to accumulate to dangerous levels in sea creatures:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Northwest

Even if what you say is correct and the levels are mostly harmless, WE STILL HAVE TO MONITOR THEM! We have to know if they rise to truly lethal levels or not - that means that every major nuclear accident causes damage to humans and the environment even many decades after it happened, and ties up resources for management.

Unless one is fundamentally irresponsible like you and and just assumes that everything will be fine.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat May 20, 2017 5:34 am

EM

Some of what you say, I agree with. Yes, it is important to monitor things. Yes, an elevated level of radioactivity in mushrooms is something to take note of, and watch.

Where we are at odds is your naive and gullible acceptance of government statements as if it was science. It is not. And ten times a government 'safety llimit' is still ten times too low to be of real concern.

On me eating mushrooms. I am the wrong guy to ask, since I dislike the taste and do not eat the mushrooms grown here in very clean NZ. But if I were hungry enough, I would eat them. With distaste.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 25, 2017 3:52 am

An article on the future on nuclear power appeared in this week's New Scientist. Some interesting data. Over the past 20 years, the share of electricity generation by nuclear globally has dropped from 18% to 11%. However, over the same period, electricity generation has increased 60%. So not much drop in absolute terms. The share of solar today is 1%, and wind is 5%. So a large part of the slack was not taken up by renewables, but by burning more fossil fuel.

The article also mentioned the impact of closing nuclear power and replacing with fossil fuel electricity generation. After Three Mile Island, a nuclear power plant in Tennessee was closed down and replaced with coal burners. A substantial increase in air pollution resulted, and this was accompanied by lower infant birth weights, which is a clear marker of harm to human health. There are still 449 nuclear power plants world wide, and closing them down would have significant consequences in terms of worsening human health.

The reason for fewer nuclear power plants is clear cut. There was a marked reduction in new plants being planned straight after each of the major nuclear power accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. In other words, human fear and paranoia.

The next generation of nuclear technologies is under way. There are more than 50 "advanced nuclear companies" in the USA today, all planning to produce the next generation. Samuel Brinton of the US Bipartisan Policy Center claims that the nuclear industry is now essentially a start up industry, with so much innovation. There are major problems in human terms. That is, the existing fears and paranoia, plus safety regulations, which increase cost. Other forms of energy generation which are much less safe do not have these handicaps.

The article describes nuclear power as offering cheap, clean energy - no greenhouse gases or air pollution, they run day and night, and are relatively inexpensive to operate. It would be a real tragedy if human stupidity stops this superior energy source reaching its potential.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu May 25, 2017 4:19 pm

I read somewhere that building a plant very expensive to set up and maintain. Is there existing policy that add on to the costs?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 25, 2017 8:01 pm

Part of the high cost is building in the safety measures that are laid down by government. Not that I am suggesting that this be dispensed with, but it seems unfair that much more dangerous methods, like coal, gas, wind and solar, can get away without those added costs.

However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method. The cost of the fuel, for example, is less than 10% of the total. Compare this to coal or gas, where the cost of fuel is the major cost. Wind power has a low operating cost also, but like nuclear, has a very high cost in commissioning the generators, because each one produces relatively little electricity, and a hell of a lot of towers are needed. Solar power major cost is the cost of the panels and their installation.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 25, 2017 8:03 pm

I was going to link an article on "Clean Coal" tech. Evidently, if you burn coal at high temp in pure oxygen the only waste product is co2 and water vapor....ie: no need to chemically clean or scrub the waste gases. The co2 can then be pumped underground to sequester it and to produce natural gas from otherwise empty fields. It turns out to be easier to burn natural gas than to use coal....so coal still looks like its on the outs. Cost of the natural gas process is less than (current) solar. Makes me think a coal process is also relatively cheap...just not as cheap.

At first I thought there was a danger in thinking gas would stay trapped underground, but being heavier than air...it should stay put?

Lance: I am FOR the death penalty. Some people "deserve" it. BUT given the reality of costly appeal process, delay, and hypocrisy, and errors in the system, I totally accept the notion of No Death Penalty. Why don't you do the same for Nukes? You know: take reality into consideration?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 25, 2017 8:06 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method.


YOU LIE!

Saying the exact opposite in the following sentences does not fix this LIE. The fuel cost of solar/wind is: ZERO.

There is NO FREE MARKET that will invest in Nukes. The investment is too long to break even and is subject to uninsurable risks.

Deal with reality.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu May 25, 2017 8:07 pm

Yeah - it's the fault of hippies that the huge energy companies find nuclear power plants not worth the investment.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 25, 2017 8:14 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... n-the-way/

Not as technical as the article I first read...but more up to date as actually up and running which wasn't the case I read about. Different patents? Purity?? Science does "march on" in marvelous ways. We can do just about "anything" we want to do. Money and time apparently the real limits.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 25, 2017 8:19 pm

Bobbo

I agree that the cost of wind is zero. But wind towers have a very big ongoing maintenance cost.

When you say you are for the death penalty, because some people 'deserve' it, you are demonstrating emotional thinking. "Deserve" is an emotional concept. Your thinking on nuclear power is just as emotional.

Your science is also suspect. For example, you think CO2 being heavier than air will make it stay put. Duh!!
CO2 blends with air (like sugar dissolving in water) and is then every bit as mobile as the air itself. It does not 'stay put.' In fact, all gases are very mobile.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 25, 2017 8:27 pm

Lance: even when pinned down and a funnel in your mouth: YOU CONTINUE TO LIE.

Its so absurd....to be comical.

THE ISSUE IS FUEL COST......so, how is maintenance cost a part of it in your gaseous process you call thinking?

Answer that, and we can go forward with your other nonsense.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 25, 2017 8:36 pm

The issue was not fuel cost. I used the term 'ongoing cost' which includes maintenance. Please drop the straw men.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 25, 2017 9:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: The article describes nuclear power as offering cheap, clean energy - no greenhouse gases or air pollution, they run day and night, and are relatively inexpensive to operate. It would be a real tragedy if human stupidity stops this superior energy source reaching its potential.


All Lies. Some a bit dirty and closer to the truth, but mostly: pure lies. As with the issue of fuel cost..... you have been given the more supportable information, and you continue as here to ignore it....not even later to be explained by yourself how wrong it actually is. Its like you are posting nothing but "Headlines" with the truth in the body of the article on page 3 never again to be considered.

WHAT YOU SAID WAS:
Lance Kennedy wrote: However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method


LMFTFY:

"Once you take out the Major Cost Factor of Nuke Plants, and don't even consider the cost of long term waste storage, and provide government backed insurance for limited public exposure, and no coverage at all for terrorist attacks....Nuke power is cost competitive with other forms of energy---except its not anymore as the cost of solar continues to plummet."

.................and NO, that is not a clue for you to launch into your rag that Solar doesn't run at night.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 26, 2017 1:26 am

Actually that quote was not lies. It was taken directly from the article. If you do not like it, Bobbo, write to the editor of New Scientist.

On other costs for nuclear, I have always said the main costs were :
1. Building the nuclear power plant
2. Decommissioning it when it has run its course.
Nuclear waste disposal is expensive when done stupidly, as the USA government and British governments are doing now. When done the smart way, it is a minimal cost. Remember, Bobbo, that each person using electricity from 100% nuclear source, generates only 40 grams per year of nuclear waste. Disposing of that tiny amount is not expensive.

But once a nuclear power plant is built, then running it is cheap. The cost per kilowatt hour of electricity generated is about 2 cents. Compare this to 10 cents for coal. The long term cost of nuclear power is about 12 cents per kilowatt hour, which includes the cost of building and decommissioning.

And yes. Solar power does not work at night.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 26, 2017 3:35 am

Just as you keep saying. I'd be dishonest if I presented the way you do. Call me emotional.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri May 26, 2017 3:49 am

First of all, Lance, the article you quote is behind a paywall... which makes it not really something we can discuss.

And secondly, nuclear power USES FUEL - it is STUPID to even suggest that it doesn't.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 26, 2017 8:14 am

EM

Of course nuclear power uses fuel. Show me anywhere I said it did not. Duh!!!

But the amount of fuel used is miniscule. That is why the fuel cost is also miniscule. It is around 1 cent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. (Pus another 1 cent per kilowatt hour for other costs.) The tiny amount of fuel required is also the reason why only a tiny amount of waste is produced. The two go together.

THis is not burning coal, which generates millions of tonnes of toxic waste. This is tiny amounts of nuclear fuel. And no greenhouse gases.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri May 26, 2017 8:35 am

Whatever the price of fuel, it's still more than what wind and solar requires. And you wanted us to treat these as if they had fuel.

And of course your price doesn't include waste processing, since we have no true calculation for that. Neither does it consider security or how the price would change if the world move en masse back to nuclear.

The nuclear power plants still in operation NEED to close down: most of them are already past their safe operation time, and plenty of studies have shown so.
I'm eager to see what new nuclear technologies hit the prototype stage in coming decades. But it seems that even your article supports the view that current light-water reactors are no longer a competitive and desirable way to produce electricity.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 26, 2017 7:58 pm

EM

Please do not put words in my mouth.
I am not suggesting you treat wind and solar as if they used fuel. I am suggesting that ongoing costs are real for all kinds of power generation, whether fuel or maintenance. For example, if you have a home off the grid, using solar panels, you will need a hell of a lot of battery storage, and those batteries will need to be replaced every few years. The cost of replacement adds up to something like 10 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. Wind turbines carry a big ongoing maintenance cost. Nuclear power stations also have ongoing maintenance costs, but because they generate such vast amounts of power, the maintenance cost calculated per kilowatt hour of electricity generated is not anywhere near as high.

Waste processing is not a great cost. How many times do I have to tell you that the total amount of waste generated by nuclear power stations is utterly miniscule!!! The problem with nuclear waste is, and always has been, political.

I am also keen to see what new kinds of nuclear technology appear in the next decade or so. The problem, though, is not the technology. The problem is, and always has been, the idiocy of people who have turned nuclear into a bogeyman. Since it is, in fact, the safest electricity generating technology, this is ridiculous, but nevertheless real.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri May 26, 2017 8:50 pm

Lance, there is no working permanent storage, so you don't know the cost.
Check reality from time to time.
And power plants need maintenance, too.

All current sources say light water reactors are not worth the effort.
You are alone with your infatuation.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 26, 2017 11:06 pm

It is not quite true that there is no working permanent storage of nuclear waste. There is one in Finland.

However, as I pointed out, if the whole world used nothing but nuclear power, then 1,000 years of waste could be put into a single hole in the desert, 2 kilometres by 2 kilometres, and buried. That is how minimal the quantity actually is. Such storage, broken down to sum per kilowatt hour of electricity produced, would come to a fraction of a cent. As always, you totally ignore the simple fact that the amount of nuclear waste is miniscule.

If that desert were geologically stable, such as the Namib or Kalahari Desert in Africa, or the Simpson Desert in Australia, it would stay buried for a million years with no disturbance.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 26, 2017 11:32 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

Please do not put words in my mouth.
I am not suggesting you treat wind and solar as if they used fuel.


Yes.......that is what you do: "in effect" when you say
"However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method."
Thereafter you dither somewhat but you post as if stuck on this main characterization. This is your "style" on this subject. Main Point that is Factually WRONG, some dithering showing your main point is WRONG, then a hearty conclusion that your WRONG Main Point is the only "scientific" way to proceed.

Actually, reviewing that post, lets reproduce it in full:

Lance Kennedy wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 1:01 pm
Part of the high cost is building in the safety measures that are laid down by government. Not that I am suggesting that this be dispensed with, but it seems unfair that much more dangerous methods, like coal, gas, wind and solar, can get away without those added costs.

However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method. The cost of the fuel, for example, is less than 10% of the total. Compare this to coal or gas, where the cost of fuel is the major cost. Wind power has a low operating cost also, but like nuclear, has a very high cost in commissioning the generators, because each one produces relatively little electricity, and a hell of a lot of towers are needed. Solar power major cost is the cost of the panels and their installation.


Like a Nuke Power Plant, it would be hard to construct a more devious intentionally fact manipulative statement.......ha, ha: and then call anyone who disagrees by stressing what you begrudgingly acknowledge as relevant facts as being "emotional."

I live near Rancho Seco. It never ran at full power due to safety concerns and got shut down after 10 years of operation. Sits there out in the alfalfa fields all alone. Nice patch of green grass out front. Another economic free market consideration: putting too many eggs in one basket...and the basket fails to hold those eggs.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Part of the high cost is building in the safety measures that are laid down by government. Not that I am suggesting that this be dispensed with, but it seems unfair that much more dangerous methods, like coal, gas, wind and solar, can get away without those added costs.
What are you fantacizing here? That coal, gas, wind and solar don't have safety measures in their building and operations? Or that they don't have to have the same as Nukes?====? You do know that coal plants are not nuclear plants? Ha, ha. Statement is downright "loopy."

But wait, there's more:

Lance Kennedy wrote:However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method. The cost of the fuel, for example, is less than 10% of the total. Compare this to coal or gas, where the cost of fuel is the major cost. Wind power has a low operating cost also, but like nuclear, has a very high cost in commissioning the generators, because each one produces relatively little electricity, and a hell of a lot of towers are needed. Solar power major cost is the cost of the panels and their installation.


1. However, once built, a nuclear power station generates power at a lower cost than any other method. //// Gross misstatement aka a lie. NOT CORRECTED by your additional manipulations.

2. The cost of the fuel, for example, is less than 10% of the total. //// 10% of what? Some PARTIAL list of total costs I assume? You do WORSE THAN CHERRY PICK HERE. You isolate facts, then "MIX AND MATCH" here is coal to avoid solar....then with solar you completely flip out and substitute cost of panels as an offset for fuel costs. You can't be more ludicrous. And the "cost" of mining for the fuels. Mountain top coal mining, fracking for gas==lots of environmental damages. But NUKES. What is the "real" cost of the mining, waste, and storage of that process? Probably as honestly calculated as the delivery cost of the final product not including plant costs?????????

Its all................... lies.................. not credible.

Its our triple combo: What Big Fossil wants, gubment subsidies and lack of regulations and enforcement of those regs that do exist, and a sleeping media owned now by Big Biz. aka: another scheme to transfer wealth to the AlreadyTooRich with all the harm and cost visited on the general public.

...............................................................................................................................................Wake Up Lance?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat May 27, 2017 12:01 am

Bobbo

It would be really nice if one day you wrote something sensible. However, I will try to address your somewhat indecipherable meanderings.

You said that "in effect", I do claim that wind and solar need fuel?
Come on Bobbo. Get real. I made it very clear that they had ongoing costs, and never, never, never suggested they needed fuel. Duh!!

You mention safety measures for coal, wind, gas and solar. Sure, they have to meet minimum standards, but not the horrendous legislative requirements that nuclear meets.

You ask "10% less than what"?
I have quoted costs consistently as cents per kilowatt hour. Nuclear power costs about 12 cents per kilowatt hour, and the cost of the fuel is less than 10% of that. If this is not clear, I do not know how I can make it clearer without actually holding you down and forcing it down your throat. Again, duh!!

For comparison, gas is the cheapest at down to 8 cents per kwhr (by some calculations.)
Coal Next at 10 cents. Ditto hydroelectric.
Then nuclear at 12 cents.
Wind and solar are about 15 cents, though this number drastically increases if you make the wind power offshore, or if you add energy storage.

The numbers are widely variable, though, from plant to plant and country to country. So for each number add a plus or minus factor. For example, for nuclear power, since the main costs are those of building the plant and later decommissioning it, the cost per kilowatt hour drops substantially if the plant is run for a lot longer than the 'normal' service life. A lot of nuclear power plant operators are doing just that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 27, 2017 12:34 am

Yep........like I said.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat May 27, 2017 2:05 am

The standard less than intelligent Bobbo reply!

Anyway, on another point. How much does it cost to dispose of nuclear waste?
Assuming my system is used, putting it into a deep hole in a desert in a geologically stable place like the Namib or Simpson deserts. We take into account the following.

Transport to dump site. If the material being transported was inert, it would cost (including sea freight and two land transport legs) less than $US 1,000 per tonne. I do not know how much it would cost to transport nuclear waste half way round the world, but to be truly conservative, I multiply the above by 10. That is, $US 10,000 per tonne.

Dump fees. Again, I do not know what the host nation would charge, but guess another $US 10,000 per tonne.

Handling on site, including any necessary excavation, and the burying cost. Probably a few hundred dollars per tonne, but in the interests of being truly conservative, let us say another $US 10,000 per tonne.

That Is a total of $US 30,000 per tonne. But I want to be UNBELIEVABLY conservative, so let us multiply that total by 33 and call it $US 1 million per tonne.

The global nuclear industry generates about 2,000 tonnes per year of nuclear waste, and at the same time generates 3 terawatt hours of electricity each year.

Converting those numbers to cost of disposal as cents per kilowatt hour, and we get 0.01 cents per kilowatt hour.

Basically, the cost of disposing nuclear waste permanently is negligible.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 27, 2017 3:13 am

Is that .01 cents or dollars?

If you would ever directly answer contending emails.........go back to the one where I opposed Nukes for each and every element of your position. Its not just the waste===>its "everything" about it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 27, 2017 3:36 am

Lance, here is a market enthusiastic about nuclear power and free from environmental concerns:
China

And they've suspended building new plants, too, until the Generation III+ systems have been shown to work:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-reactors

Meanwhile, costs for decomissioning and cleaning up failed storage projects are skyrocketing, so much that we can't even estimate them.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/soaring_c ... r_shutdown

So Lance, stop using your"perfect condition" cost and risk calculations and see how nuclear power a does in the real world - not well.
The only thing it has going for is is low Green House gas emission, but that comes with incalculable costs down the line.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat May 27, 2017 3:56 am

Bobbo

0.01 cents per kilowatt hour. And that is after applying massive fudge factors to raise the cost. In other words, negligible.

EM

The figures I used for cost per kilowatt hour were calculated by a team of engineers. Bearing in mind that the day to day costs of nuclear power are actually very low, the total of 12 cents per kilowatt hour require massive payouts for building and decommissioning. Your opinions count for nothing, compared to the expert work by specialist engineers.

While searching for data to calculate cost of nuclear waste disposal, I found a reference which says that there are 449 operating nuclear power stations, and another 60 under construction.

On your last two references.
1. China waiting for new technology. This appears sensible to me.
2. The problem in the German salt mine. Yeah. You may recall that I said there were two requirments for good permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Geological stability and desert dry conditions. If the Germans want to bury nuclear waste in a wet salt mine, they are idiots.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 27, 2017 4:29 am

American plants also have massive decommissioning cost overruns.

And the German storage system was the considered the best solution at the time: you have no guarantee that your "throw it in the desert and forget about it" solution won't bite us in the ass either, some time in the future.
After all, the Hanford nuclear facility has massive problems, even though no place on earth has more experience in dealing with radioactive waste.
And places considered safe forever, like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, are fighting with the effect of Climate Change.

If we have learned anything from a century of experimenting with and using nuclear power, it is that we still don't have a safe handle on the entire process.
So why do you think scepticism is unwarranted, naive even, when we can countless examples of problems being worse than nuclear power proponents are willing to admit?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9151
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 27, 2017 4:55 am

You know................some links would be appreciated.

to your credit Lance, you have on occasion when challenged provided confirming links that your characterizion of was accurate. So I don't have a big complaint or suspicion there except:

But still............... the links. Nuances can be missed, and how can your audience learn?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 27, 2017 5:18 am

Nuclear power in the US needs subsidies;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -must-end/
and these come at the cost of better techonologies:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6042 ... velopment/

Meanwhile, scientist have shown that if the US experiences a disaster in one of its nuclear waste storages, caused naturally or through terror, the results could be utterly catastrophic:

http://www.vocativ.com/433223/us-undere ... -disaster/

So in short
- nuclear power is more expensive than many other forms of energy unless you ignore empirical data
- nuclear power is creating grave safety issues at every stage of its operation
- nuclear power is outdated and we have no experience with newer systems
- nuclear power has no record of safe storage of waste for any significant amount of time

as a result, more and more countries (like recently Switzerland) have decided to get out of Nuclear power or to drastically slow down or even cut their plans for new reactors.

Nuclear energy, using new processes and systems, will have to prove that it can actually deliver what it has promised for the last 50 years.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests