[video] Nuclear power, thorium and LFTR

[pcstru]

Doesn't really deal with my comment about why they put this exclusion zone in place... Sure, the cost of cleanup is going to be a chunk of cash, but so is the cost of cleanup for the damage done by coal...

I'm not quite sure why you want to compare with coal. They both have risks and those risks are different. Seems like asking someone if they would like to be hit with a bat or a hammer. Just because the hammer makes a bigger dent in the skull, doesn't mean I want to be hit with a bat.

Yup. Have you watched the video? Done some further reading to confirm what has been said? Looked for any evidence of the dangers of nuclear beyond what you are repeating over and over again - pointing at cleanup and exclusion zones without any scientific evidence?

Evidence of what exactly? That (say) radiation is linked to cancer? That statistically, those living in areas with higher levels of radiation suffer higher death rates? If you can be clear as to what evidence you want, perhaps I can put you in touch with it. We stopped putting novelty x-ray machines in shops for a reason.

 

You are once again perpetuating the same thing! You're saying "elevated levels of radiation" as if that instantly means "dangerous to health". And I'm saying, again, I want evidence of this. The numbers simply don't lead to this conclusion.

Numbers? You have numbers! Excellent. Let's see them then.

If they did, there would be more deaths from radiation poisoning from Chernobyl and Fukishima, from Windscale, or from Three Mile Island. It simply doesn't add up.

 

Right. So what should the numbers be? Why should they be more? You are keen on evidence based but aren't actually supplying any - just making broad brush statements and suggesting you know more after a 2 hour video than people who have actually had to take decisions about peoples lives.

[localzuk]

I'm not quite sure why you want to compare with coal. They both have risks and those risks are different. Seems like asking someone if they would like to be hit with a bat or a hammer. Just because the hammer makes a bigger dent in the skull, doesn't mean I want to be hit with a bat.

 

Because we don't have the technologies to produce the electricity that we need from renewable sources. Plain and simple. We can't maintain baseline with wind and solar, even if we add in tidal - that has been accepted by renewable energy proponents for quite some time, so the 'backup' supply needs to come from somewhere. Our energy mix will therefore consist of more fossil fuels, such as coal and gas. And considering there is a hell of a lot more coal around than gas, that's where we'll end up without nuclear.

 

Evidence of what exactly? That (say) radiation is linked to cancer? That statistically, those living in areas with higher levels of radiation suffer higher death rates? If you can be clear as to what evidence you want, perhaps I can put you in touch with it. We stopped putting novelty x-ray machines in shops for a reason.

 

Evidence of deaths, evidence of higher death levels, in comparison to the technologies that we're competing against.

 

Numbers? You have numbers! Excellent. Let's see them then.

 

Already provided earlier. Forbes have a good, well sourced, article covering deaths from the different technologies. Remember, renewable technologies require difficult to acquire materials - rare earth metals in wind turbines for example. So they aren't purely 'clean'.

 

Right. So what should the numbers be? Why should they be more? You are keen on evidence based but aren't actually supplying any - just making broad brush statements and suggesting you know more after a 2 hour video than people who have actually had to take decisions about peoples lives.

 

Ok, lets count up. Provided by me? 1 video, 2 articles and a link to a wikipedia page (which is also heavily sourced). Provided to support your arguments? Nothing. Just repeating the same scare-mongering that exists all over the place about nuclear.

Edited February 15, 2013 by localzuk

[pcstru]

One of your articles compares radiation released by coal and nuclear plants *per energy unit generated*. So operationally, coal produces more radiation than nuclear. But that doesn't factor accidents which is where nuclear consequences far outdo consequences of coal per individual power station.

 

Deaths from coal vs nuclear. Many of the deaths from coal are directly attributable in the production process. There is a difference between choosing to work down a mine (and accepting the risk inherent in that) and living somewhere where they then choose to site a nuclear power plant.

 

Are you seriously saying you don't believe radiation can kill you? Are you saying there is no correlation between radiation levels and cancer? You think there should be no exclusion zone around Fukushima or that if they hadn't evacuated around Chernobyl everyone would have been just hunky dory?

 

I've seen a growth in the promotion of Thorium processes over the last few years. It's certainly less risky than some other nuclear processes and in theory produces less (not no) waste - which is good because we don't really know what to do with the waste we already have, so I guess less would be better. So if we have to have nuclear Thorium might be an OK choice and if we were starting from scratch it would probably be a no-brainer. Neither of those are necessarily a given.

 

I've no doubt that nuclear needs to be part of the energy equation in the immediate future. Yes, you can't magic renewable and sustainable generation out of nothing, nor the storage such a switch would need. But that's a different thing to saying it can never be done. It CAN be done and it MUST be done. The only question should be, how do we get there. Do we need a whole new nuclear infrastructure based around a new fuel process or should we be looking at new plants based on a limited operational lifetime while a longer term strategy is put in place that doesn't involve us scrounging off our children to give us our energy fix. If the latter, then a few new plants based on existing technology just might be cheaper than pursuing an entirely new Thorium process. We need a coherent, cohesive, rational energy strategy in which nuclear might play a transitional part, it shouldn't be the basket for our long term eggs.

Edited February 15, 2013 by pcstru

[localzuk]

No, I'm not saying that radiation can't kill you, that would be dumb. I'm saying that the dangers of a release from a nuclear power station have and are being overplayed.

 

No-one has said it can never be done, but you've been arguing against nuclear very stubbornly here - and now admit it needs to be included in our energy mix. So, why get so annoyed about it, and about my view that more effort needs to be put into LFTR research?

 

Your arguments have almost consistently ignored the original post and have focussed nearly entirely on the current and prior generations of nuclear power plants, whilst perpetuating flawed arguments.

 

Even your latest post tries to say that accidents have caused massive damage to the world, but the evidence simply doesn't support it. The number of deaths from nuclear accidents is tiny, even if you go with the upper numbers for them (well, ignoring greenpeace who seem to have come up with crazy numbers for Chernobyl, which no-one else has agreed with).

 

Also, your comment about people dying directly in the production chain is somewhat misleading - we all use electricity, voluntarily. So we're all as 'involved' in that process as everyone who works at the stations or mines.

[CyberNerd]

THey've not made Water Cooled reactors for years, I don't think we've ever had them in the UK. THere is a fundamental flaw in water cooled reactors (as pointed out in the video) and this is what happened at Chernobyl - the reactor heated too fast, the water turned to steam; created a positive void coefficient, the steam couldn't take the heat away and this resulted in a thermal (not nuclear) explosion.

Modern reactors are never made this way, even the 1960's reactors in the UK are gas cooled (CO2) and sometimes cooled with liquid sodium - thus this type of accident can't happen on most reactors.

[SYNACK]

That and the control rods did not go all the way down so could not slow a cascading reaction.