Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jul 25, 2014 4:03:24 GMT 1
As stated in the humanity thread, I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy. It's efficient, reliable, and is almost critical for extending humanity's reach beyond the Earth-Moon system (solar power drops off exponentially the further you get from the Sun).
With regard to pollution, I know on the end of electricity, nuclear plants are most likely the most efficient and clean ways of generating power overall. Wind farms require certain terrain and the windmills are very maintenance intensive. Hydro electric is much the same way, especially when you consider how much it costs to build a dam and then keep it in proper repair. Solar is good in many respects, but the fragility of the panels makes them expensive as well (not to mention energy storage -i.e. batteries- are still not at the point to where they can be used for extended periods if the solar panels don't work as designed). One thing to consider is that nuclear has its own drawbacks, most designs in use can be used to breed weapons-grade materials, older designs currently in use require expensive cooling and maintenance systems, and the current designs result in a shitload of waste. However, new generations designs use passive cooling systems (obviating the need for active systems outside of backup redundancy in emergencies) and can use fuels that don't breed weapons-grade materials or generate waste on the scale currently produced. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power .
In the case of the high-profile accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), the actual effects are often exaggerated.
Three Mile Island was a situation where everything that could go wrong, did go wrong and yet no one died from it (even now, there's no evidence of the incident causing deaths or radiation-induced cancer). The reactor's design kept a true nightmare scenario from developing (the design of the control room sucked ass, though and contributed to the problems).
Chernobyl was a massive clusterfuck which involved a perfect storm of a reactor design that was meant to be powerful and cheap to make (cutting corners on mandatory safety items like containment buildings), the buildings were roofed with a petroleum-based tar that burns readily, and human incompetence in the staff of the facility who ran an unauthorized and dangerous experiment and then made the reactor completely unstable during their efforts (the experiment required the reactor be running at a certain level, but the rector below that level so the staff kept trying to boost its power, even by deliberately disabling all safety mechanisms; when the reactor caught up with what they were trying to do, it jumped to over 100 times its rated maximum in a fraction of a second and pretty much exploded). Chernobyl was horrific as hell. And yet, the total known deaths that can be directly attributed to the disaster is about 102 (32 people who died fighting the fire or were caught in the initial explosion, and 70 due to radiation-induced cancer). Flaws in the screening process to assess the damage caused make it difficult to figure out how badly people were affected, however. Per the wiki article detailing the effects of Chernobyl: "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes "1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer in children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the disaster occurred, which is far higher than normal",[13] although this source fails to note the expected rate. " And... "Late in 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl disaster, and among these, some 10 deaths are attributed to radiation. However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests some of this increase may be an artifact of the screening process.[citation needed] Typical latency time of radiation-induced thyroid cancer is about 10 years, but the increase in childhood thyroid cancers in some regions was observed as early as 1987."
Then there's this: "The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area. On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.[28]
An increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia affected by the Chernobyl disaster has been firmly established as a result of screening programs[29] and, in the case of Belarus, an established cancer registry. The findings of most epidemiological studies must be considered interim, say experts, as analysis of the health effects of the disaster is an ongoing process.[30]
Epidemiological studies have been hampered in the Ukraine, Russian Federation and Belarus by a lack of funds, an infrastructure with little or no experience in chronic disease epidemiology, poor communication facilities and an immediate public health problem with many dimensions. Emphasis has been placed on screening rather than on well-designed epidemiological studies. International efforts to organize epidemiological studies have been slowed by some of the same factors, especially the lack of a suitable scientific infrastructure.
Furthermore, the political nature of nuclear energy may have affected scientific studies. In Belarus, Yury Bandazhevsky, a scientist who questioned the official estimates of Chernobyl's consequences and the relevancy of the official maximum limit of 1,000 Bq/kg, was imprisoned from 2001 to 2005. Bandazhevsky and some human rights groups allege his imprisonment was a reprisal for his publication of reports critical of the official research being conducted into the Chernobyl incident."
All that said, the area around Pripyat (the city where the Chernobyl facility is located) was and still is fucked up pretty bad from the fallout with the area still evacuated and the environment struggling to recover.
Regarding Fukushima, that was another perfect storm clusterfuck. The earthquake followed by the tsunami really fucked up the plant, but in the end, it was human corruption and incompetence that led to the disaster. From the wiki: "The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade" and that its direct causes were all foreseeable. The report also found that the plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, regulators Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and NSC and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to meet the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans.[21][22] A separate study by Stanford researchers found that Japanese plants operated by the largest utility companies were particularly unprotected against potential tsunamis.[7]" One "silver lining" in all that mess, though, is that there are no reported deaths directly attributed to the disaster (i.e. no one died of radiation sickness), but the long term effects are still being closely monitored.
So in the three worst nuclear disasters, the official direct death count is just over 100. And we've had nuclear power since 1942. That's far less deaths than the more conventional power industry.
When you also consider that the U.S. alone has enough materials like thorium that can keep us in electricity at the current rate of consumption for at least the next 1000 years and the tech is bound to get better the more we take the time to refine it, it's almost a no-brainer to me.
With regard to pollution, I know on the end of electricity, nuclear plants are most likely the most efficient and clean ways of generating power overall. Wind farms require certain terrain and the windmills are very maintenance intensive. Hydro electric is much the same way, especially when you consider how much it costs to build a dam and then keep it in proper repair. Solar is good in many respects, but the fragility of the panels makes them expensive as well (not to mention energy storage -i.e. batteries- are still not at the point to where they can be used for extended periods if the solar panels don't work as designed). One thing to consider is that nuclear has its own drawbacks, most designs in use can be used to breed weapons-grade materials, older designs currently in use require expensive cooling and maintenance systems, and the current designs result in a shitload of waste. However, new generations designs use passive cooling systems (obviating the need for active systems outside of backup redundancy in emergencies) and can use fuels that don't breed weapons-grade materials or generate waste on the scale currently produced. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power .
In the case of the high-profile accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), the actual effects are often exaggerated.
Three Mile Island was a situation where everything that could go wrong, did go wrong and yet no one died from it (even now, there's no evidence of the incident causing deaths or radiation-induced cancer). The reactor's design kept a true nightmare scenario from developing (the design of the control room sucked ass, though and contributed to the problems).
Chernobyl was a massive clusterfuck which involved a perfect storm of a reactor design that was meant to be powerful and cheap to make (cutting corners on mandatory safety items like containment buildings), the buildings were roofed with a petroleum-based tar that burns readily, and human incompetence in the staff of the facility who ran an unauthorized and dangerous experiment and then made the reactor completely unstable during their efforts (the experiment required the reactor be running at a certain level, but the rector below that level so the staff kept trying to boost its power, even by deliberately disabling all safety mechanisms; when the reactor caught up with what they were trying to do, it jumped to over 100 times its rated maximum in a fraction of a second and pretty much exploded). Chernobyl was horrific as hell. And yet, the total known deaths that can be directly attributed to the disaster is about 102 (32 people who died fighting the fire or were caught in the initial explosion, and 70 due to radiation-induced cancer). Flaws in the screening process to assess the damage caused make it difficult to figure out how badly people were affected, however. Per the wiki article detailing the effects of Chernobyl: "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes "1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer in children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the disaster occurred, which is far higher than normal",[13] although this source fails to note the expected rate. " And... "Late in 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl disaster, and among these, some 10 deaths are attributed to radiation. However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests some of this increase may be an artifact of the screening process.[citation needed] Typical latency time of radiation-induced thyroid cancer is about 10 years, but the increase in childhood thyroid cancers in some regions was observed as early as 1987."
Then there's this: "The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area. On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.[28]
An increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia affected by the Chernobyl disaster has been firmly established as a result of screening programs[29] and, in the case of Belarus, an established cancer registry. The findings of most epidemiological studies must be considered interim, say experts, as analysis of the health effects of the disaster is an ongoing process.[30]
Epidemiological studies have been hampered in the Ukraine, Russian Federation and Belarus by a lack of funds, an infrastructure with little or no experience in chronic disease epidemiology, poor communication facilities and an immediate public health problem with many dimensions. Emphasis has been placed on screening rather than on well-designed epidemiological studies. International efforts to organize epidemiological studies have been slowed by some of the same factors, especially the lack of a suitable scientific infrastructure.
Furthermore, the political nature of nuclear energy may have affected scientific studies. In Belarus, Yury Bandazhevsky, a scientist who questioned the official estimates of Chernobyl's consequences and the relevancy of the official maximum limit of 1,000 Bq/kg, was imprisoned from 2001 to 2005. Bandazhevsky and some human rights groups allege his imprisonment was a reprisal for his publication of reports critical of the official research being conducted into the Chernobyl incident."
All that said, the area around Pripyat (the city where the Chernobyl facility is located) was and still is fucked up pretty bad from the fallout with the area still evacuated and the environment struggling to recover.
Regarding Fukushima, that was another perfect storm clusterfuck. The earthquake followed by the tsunami really fucked up the plant, but in the end, it was human corruption and incompetence that led to the disaster. From the wiki: "The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade" and that its direct causes were all foreseeable. The report also found that the plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, regulators Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and NSC and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to meet the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans.[21][22] A separate study by Stanford researchers found that Japanese plants operated by the largest utility companies were particularly unprotected against potential tsunamis.[7]" One "silver lining" in all that mess, though, is that there are no reported deaths directly attributed to the disaster (i.e. no one died of radiation sickness), but the long term effects are still being closely monitored.
So in the three worst nuclear disasters, the official direct death count is just over 100. And we've had nuclear power since 1942. That's far less deaths than the more conventional power industry.
When you also consider that the U.S. alone has enough materials like thorium that can keep us in electricity at the current rate of consumption for at least the next 1000 years and the tech is bound to get better the more we take the time to refine it, it's almost a no-brainer to me.