Peak oil enters mainstream discussion

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: BBond
Why go nuclear with all of the inherent risks? I'm sure that you well informed P&N folks know that any organic material can be turned into fuel for internal combustion engines.

You can run cars on vegetable oil. Any vegetable.

The problem is that you need a lot of oil to fuel your tractors and combines, as well as to produce artificial fertilizers, to produce organic fuels. Even before the oil costs, it's not a very efficient means of energy production, with plants capturing only 2% of the available sunlight and much of that energy going to non oil-producing parts like roots, stalks, and leaves.

Solar panels are about 15% efficient, so they're a much better deal, and modern nuclear power plants are even more efficient and aren't that risky.

Tell that to the people of the Ukraine or the Pennsylvanians who live around Three Mile Island.

Crop production is a renewable resource that is expensive because it isn't in use. As with all other renewable resources, the cost will come down dramatically once the technology is fully implemented.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up Chernobyl and TMI.

Chernobyl cannot happen in the US for several reasons:

1. The US does not operate any RBMK reactors (an unstable design with some idosyncracies their operators were not aware of).

2. US commercial power ractors are required to construct a containment dome in case of a catastophic event (the Russians opted not to do so).

3. Commercial operators are not allowed to runs test such as the one that caused the accident (and turning off the bulk of the saftey systems).

TMI was an accident caused by equipment failure and operator error. The plant's containment system functioned as expected with a very minimal radiation release to enviroment.

There are even safer reactor designs now available to us as a result of TMI. Hopefully we can get some built.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: K1052


I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up Chernobyl and TMI.

Chernobyl cannot happen in the US for several reasons:

1. The US does not operate any RBMK reactors (an unstable design with some idosyncracies their operators were not aware of).

2. US commercial power ractors are required to construct a containment dome in case of a catastophic event (the Russians opted not to do so).

3. Commercial operators are not allowed to runs test such as the one that caused the accident (and turning off the bulk of the saftey systems).

TMI was an accident caused by equipment failure and operator error. The plant's containment system functioned as expected with a very minimal radiation release to enviroment.

There are even safer reactor designs now available to us as a result of TMI. Hopefully we can get some built.

Thanks for proving my point. Whether by design flaw or operator error, we cannot build a fail safe system and that goes for nuclear power or the most meticulously maintained systems on the planet -- for example, the space shuttle.

If man builds it it is prone to breakdown or error. In the case of nuclear power that is not a risk I'm willing to take when there are other safer alternatives.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: K1052


I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up Chernobyl and TMI.

Chernobyl cannot happen in the US for several reasons:

1. The US does not operate any RBMK reactors (an unstable design with some idosyncracies their operators were not aware of).

2. US commercial power ractors are required to construct a containment dome in case of a catastophic event (the Russians opted not to do so).

3. Commercial operators are not allowed to runs test such as the one that caused the accident (and turning off the bulk of the saftey systems).

TMI was an accident caused by equipment failure and operator error. The plant's containment system functioned as expected with a very minimal radiation release to enviroment.

There are even safer reactor designs now available to us as a result of TMI. Hopefully we can get some built.

Thanks for proving my point. Whether by design flaw or operator error, we cannot build a fail safe system and that goes for nuclear power or the most meticulously maintained systems on the planet -- for example, the space shuttle.

If man builds it it is prone to breakdown or error. In the case of nuclear power that is not a risk I'm willing to take when there are other safer alternatives.

No, you missed the point.

With care and planning nuclear power is safe and economically attractive.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: BBond
Why go nuclear with all of the inherent risks? I'm sure that you well informed P&N folks know that any organic material can be turned into fuel for internal combustion engines.

You can run cars on vegetable oil. Any vegetable.

The problem is that you need a lot of oil to fuel your tractors and combines, as well as to produce artificial fertilizers, to produce organic fuels. Even before the oil costs, it's not a very efficient means of energy production, with plants capturing only 2% of the available sunlight and much of that energy going to non oil-producing parts like roots, stalks, and leaves.

Solar panels are about 15% efficient, so they're a much better deal, and modern nuclear power plants are even more efficient and aren't that risky.

Tell that to the people of the Ukraine or the Pennsylvanians who live around Three Mile Island.

I said modern nuclear power plant, not a control rod design dating back to WW2.

Crop production is a renewable resource that is expensive because it isn't in use. As with all other renewable resources, the cost will come down dramatically once the technology is fully implemented.

We've invested hugely in crop production technology, but the problem is that modern agriculture techniques are energy intensive. You also simply can't change that 2% solar energy usage number much.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: BBond
Why go nuclear with all of the inherent risks? I'm sure that you well informed P&N folks know that any organic material can be turned into fuel for internal combustion engines.

You can run cars on vegetable oil. Any vegetable.

The problem is that you need a lot of oil to fuel your tractors and combines, as well as to produce artificial fertilizers, to produce organic fuels. Even before the oil costs, it's not a very efficient means of energy production, with plants capturing only 2% of the available sunlight and much of that energy going to non oil-producing parts like roots, stalks, and leaves.

Solar panels are about 15% efficient, so they're a much better deal, and modern nuclear power plants are even more efficient and aren't that risky.

Tell that to the people of the Ukraine or the Pennsylvanians who live around Three Mile Island.

I said modern nuclear power plant, not a control rod design dating back to WW2.

Crop production is a renewable resource that is expensive because it isn't in use. As with all other renewable resources, the cost will come down dramatically once the technology is fully implemented.

We've invested hugely in crop production technology, but the problem is that modern agriculture techniques are energy intensive. You also simply can't change that 2% solar energy usage number much.

Recycle waste oil. Conservation. Solar. Wind. Power generated from ocean currents. There are myriad options, which when combined can put a huge dent in our petroleum dependency.

 

[BBond]

PS I don't care what design you use for nuclear power plants. If people built it it's prone to failure.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: BBond
Thanks for proving my point. Whether by design flaw or operator error, we cannot build a fail safe system

Yes, we can. Don't limit your view of nuclear reactors to the control rod designs the navy wanted for military uses and that we foolishly used for civilian power plants too. The physics of most modern reactor designs, like pebble beds, doesn't allow meltdowns because the hotter they get, the slower the reaction gets. Pebble bed reactors are walk away safe: all the operators could leave the plant and the reaction will gradually cool until it completely stops in a week or two.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: BBond
Thanks for proving my point. Whether by design flaw or operator error, we cannot build a fail safe system

Yes, we can. Don't limit your view of nuclear reactors to the control rod designs the navy wanted for military uses and that we foolishly used for civilian power plants too. The physics of most modern reactor designs, like pebble beds, doesn't allow meltdowns because the hotter they get, the slower the reaction gets. Pebble bed reactors are walk away safe: all the operators could leave the plant and the reaction will gradually cool until it completely stops in a week or two.

Until chaos theory takes over and you have a catastrophic accident that no one can explain.

 

[berserker]

Hrm, exactly how many people died as a result of what happened at 3 Mile Island? How much did cancer rates rise? I could answer these for you, but you would do better by googling "3 mile island myths". Chernobyl was a friggin disaster, sure, but we never made that type of POS reactor here.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: K1052


I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up Chernobyl and TMI.

Chernobyl cannot happen in the US for several reasons:

1. The US does not operate any RBMK reactors (an unstable design with some idosyncracies their operators were not aware of).

2. US commercial power ractors are required to construct a containment dome in case of a catastophic event (the Russians opted not to do so).

3. Commercial operators are not allowed to runs test such as the one that caused the accident (and turning off the bulk of the saftey systems).

TMI was an accident caused by equipment failure and operator error. The plant's containment system functioned as expected with a very minimal radiation release to enviroment.

There are even safer reactor designs now available to us as a result of TMI. Hopefully we can get some built.

Thanks for proving my point. Whether by design flaw or operator error, we cannot build a fail safe system and that goes for nuclear power or the most meticulously maintained systems on the planet -- for example, the space shuttle.

If man builds it it is prone to breakdown or error. In the case of nuclear power that is not a risk I'm willing to take when there are other safer alternatives.

No, you missed the point.

With care and planning nuclear power is safe and economically attractive.

Exactly

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: BBond
Thanks for proving my point. Whether by design flaw or operator error, we cannot build a fail safe system

Yes, we can. Don't limit your view of nuclear reactors to the control rod designs the navy wanted for military uses and that we foolishly used for civilian power plants too. The physics of most modern reactor designs, like pebble beds, doesn't allow meltdowns because the hotter they get, the slower the reaction gets. Pebble bed reactors are walk away safe: all the operators could leave the plant and the reaction will gradually cool until it completely stops in a week or two.

Until chaos theory takes over and you have a catastrophic accident that no one can explain.

Right...

:roll:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang


No, you missed the point.

With care and planning nuclear power is safe and economically attractive.

Exactly
[/quote]

No, you miss the point. When will people learn? Nothing we ever build will ever be completely safe, yet we continue to roll the dice.

Some risks are acceptable for some people. For example, air travel. Most people are willing to face the risks involved for the benefits of air travel. When the inevitable happens, hundreds of people are affected. When the inevitable happens with a nuclear power plant how many people will be affected and for how long?

I feel that people have been lulled into a false sense of security over nuclear power. The full story on major events like Chernobyl and TMI hasn't been widely told. We were assured back then that those plants were safe too. What happens in 20 years when what is currently the latest technology starts looking old?

I'm not convinced that technology has advanced adequately to deal with a fuel source that has a half life of thousands of years. We need to wait until we're sure we have it right before developing nuclear power at a level that will supplant fossil fuels.

I saw a film on Chernobyl that really was an eye opener. Consider the risks and our responsibilities to succeeding generations.

Chernobyl Heart (2003)

 

[BBond]

PS If America hadn't gone off on a wild half-cocked gasoline binge, driving what used to pass for a small home with usually only themselves for a passenger, and had instead followed the consveration regime we had during the gas crunches of the 70s, we could have made a difference in the O.I.L. equation by now. Instead we continued bathing ourselves in cheap oil. We are now faced with hard choices without having examined alternatives.

Conservation should be the very first line of defense against the impending energy crisis.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang


No, you missed the point.

With care and planning nuclear power is safe and economically attractive.

Exactly

No, you miss the point. When will people learn? Nothing we ever build will ever be completely safe, yet we continue to roll the dice.

Some risks are acceptable for some people. For example, air travel. Most people are willing to face the risks involved for the benefits of air travel. When the inevitable happens, hundreds of people are affected. When the inevitable happens with a nuclear power plant how many people will be affected and for how long?

I feel that people have been lulled into a false sense of security over nuclear power. The full story on major events like Chernobyl and TMI hasn't been widely told. We were assured back then that those plants were safe too. What happens in 20 years when what is currently the latest technology starts looking old?

I'm not convinced that technology has advanced adequately to deal with a fuel source that has a half life of thousands of years. We need to wait until we're sure we have it right before developing nuclear power at a level that will supplant fossil fuels.

I saw a film on Chernobyl that really was an eye opener. Consider the risks and our responsibilities to succeeding generations.

Chernobyl Heart (2003)

[/quote]

I have seen Chernobyl Heart and what is depicted in the film is sad and unfortunate.
However, I already listed the reasons a similar accident cannot happen in the US but you chose to ignore that and are now making an emotional argument. The fact remains that despite everything that went wrong at TMI the plant's passive saftey features prevented any meaningful radiation release.

Lulled into a false sense of security? Please. Those events are the main reason no new nuclear plants have been constructed in the last 25. It is going to be hard enough to convince people that our older plants need replacement let alone add generating capacity.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: K1052

I have seen Chernobyl Heart and what is depicted in the film is sad and unfortunate.
However, I already listed the reasons a similar accident cannot happen in the US but you chose to ignore that and are no making an emotional argument. The fact remains that despite everything that went wrong at TMI the plant's passive saftey features prevented any meaningful radiation release.

Lulled into a false sense of security? Please. Those events are the main reason no new nuclear plants have been constructed in the last 25. It is going to be hard enough to convince people that our older plants need replacement let alone add generating capacity.

The point illustrated by Chernobyl and TMI is that an accident can and will happen at some point no matter how "safe" the design. People have to decide if they are willing to pay the consequences when the inevitable happens.

For a few thousand years or so.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond
PS If America hadn't gone off on a wild half-cocked gasoline binge, driving what used to pass for a small home with usually only themselves for a passenger, and had instead followed the consveration regime we had during the gas crunches of the 70s, we could have made a difference in the O.I.L. equation by now. Instead we continued bathing ourselves in cheap oil. We are now faced with hard choices without having examined alternatives.

Conservation should be the very first line of defense against the impending energy crisis.

So I guess the question becomes: Why didn't prior government officials promote such a policy?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: K1052

I have seen Chernobyl Heart and what is depicted in the film is sad and unfortunate.
However, I already listed the reasons a similar accident cannot happen in the US but you chose to ignore that and are no making an emotional argument. The fact remains that despite everything that went wrong at TMI the plant's passive saftey features prevented any meaningful radiation release.

Lulled into a false sense of security? Please. Those events are the main reason no new nuclear plants have been constructed in the last 25. It is going to be hard enough to convince people that our older plants need replacement let alone add generating capacity.

The point illustrated by Chernobyl and TMI is that an accident can and will happen at some point no matter how "safe" the design. People have to decide if they are willing to pay the consequences when the inevitable happens.

For a few thousand years or so.

The RBMK reactor is not what we call "safe" by western standards hence why we don't have any.

One of the main causes of TMI getting as bad (relative term) as it did was the complexity of the active saftey systems.

Even safer plants that incorporate more passive cooling systems are available to us and should be built to replace our existing reactors. The operators could stand up and walk from the plant for 3 days before any human intervention would be required.

The only legitimate gripe IMO is waste storage.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond
PS If America hadn't gone off on a wild half-cocked gasoline binge, driving what used to pass for a small home with usually only themselves for a passenger, and had instead followed the consveration regime we had during the gas crunches of the 70s, we could have made a difference in the O.I.L. equation by now. Instead we continued bathing ourselves in cheap oil. We are now faced with hard choices without having examined alternatives.

Conservation should be the very first line of defense against the impending energy crisis.

So I guess the question becomes: Why didn't prior government officials promote such a policy?

Jimmy Carter did. You'd have to ask Ronald Reagan why he changed course 180 degrees.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: K1052

I have seen Chernobyl Heart and what is depicted in the film is sad and unfortunate.
However, I already listed the reasons a similar accident cannot happen in the US but you chose to ignore that and are no making an emotional argument. The fact remains that despite everything that went wrong at TMI the plant's passive saftey features prevented any meaningful radiation release.

Lulled into a false sense of security? Please. Those events are the main reason no new nuclear plants have been constructed in the last 25. It is going to be hard enough to convince people that our older plants need replacement let alone add generating capacity.

The point illustrated by Chernobyl and TMI is that an accident can and will happen at some point no matter how "safe" the design. People have to decide if they are willing to pay the consequences when the inevitable happens.

For a few thousand years or so.

The RBMK reactor is not what we call "safe" by western standards hence why we don't have any.

One of the main causes of TMI getting as bad (relative term) as it did was the complexity of the active saftey systems.

Even safer plants that incorporate more passive cooling systems are available to us and should be built to replace our existing reactors. The operators could stand up and walk from the plant for 3 days before any human intervention would be required.

The only legitimate gripe IMO is waste storage.

What happens on the fourth day?

Waste is a clear concern as well.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Jimmy Carter did. You'd have to ask Ronald Reagan why he changed course 180 degrees.

Probably because the American public has no brains and doesn't think long term. Just look at Social Insecurity.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond
PS If America hadn't gone off on a wild half-cocked gasoline binge, driving what used to pass for a small home with usually only themselves for a passenger, and had instead followed the consveration regime we had during the gas crunches of the 70s, we could have made a difference in the O.I.L. equation by now. Instead we continued bathing ourselves in cheap oil. We are now faced with hard choices without having examined alternatives.

Conservation should be the very first line of defense against the impending energy crisis.

So I guess the question becomes: Why didn't prior government officials promote such a policy?

Jimmy Carter did. You'd have to ask Ronald Reagan why he changed course 180 degrees.

rofl thats hilarious...because President Carter was a good president? the guy sucked, his foreign policy was horrible, his domestic policy was horrible and his energy policy was horrible.

Look the truth is had we curbed use of oil it still would have made only a small difference. If we had done something to have a big impact on consumption it would have caused a recession deeper than what we were already in. What should have been done was research into alternatives which did NOT happen under Carter OR Reagan.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: K1052

I have seen Chernobyl Heart and what is depicted in the film is sad and unfortunate.
However, I already listed the reasons a similar accident cannot happen in the US but you chose to ignore that and are no making an emotional argument. The fact remains that despite everything that went wrong at TMI the plant's passive saftey features prevented any meaningful radiation release.

Lulled into a false sense of security? Please. Those events are the main reason no new nuclear plants have been constructed in the last 25. It is going to be hard enough to convince people that our older plants need replacement let alone add generating capacity.

The point illustrated by Chernobyl and TMI is that an accident can and will happen at some point no matter how "safe" the design. People have to decide if they are willing to pay the consequences when the inevitable happens.

For a few thousand years or so.

The RBMK reactor is not what we call "safe" by western standards hence why we don't have any.

One of the main causes of TMI getting as bad (relative term) as it did was the complexity of the active saftey systems.

Even safer plants that incorporate more passive cooling systems are available to us and should be built to replace our existing reactors. The operators could stand up and walk from the plant for 3 days before any human intervention would be required.

The only legitimate gripe IMO is waste storage.

What happens on the fourth day?

Waste is a clear concern as well.

They need to have a guy go out there and turn on a hose to refill a pool (seriously).

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: BBond


The point illustrated by Chernobyl and TMI is that an accident can and will happen at some point no matter how "safe" the design. People have to decide if they are willing to pay the consequences when the inevitable happens.

For a few thousand years or so.

The point has already been made Chernobyl was in no way a safe reactor when compared with what we can build today, in fact it wasn't all that great in its day. Chernobyl sucked no one is going to argue it didn't same for TMI, however, to say something can and will happen is just stupidity. Look at France they run most of their power grid off nuclear power. They've been doing it safely for years.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Originally posted by: BBond


The point illustrated by Chernobyl and TMI is that an accident can and will happen at some point no matter how "safe" the design. People have to decide if they are willing to pay the consequences when the inevitable happens.

For a few thousand years or so.

The point has already been made Chernobyl was in no way a safe reactor when compared with what we can build today, in fact it wasn't all that great in its day. Chernobyl sucked no one is going to argue it didn't same for TMI, however, to say something can and will happen is just stupidity. Look at France they run most of their power grid off nuclear power. They've been doing it safely for years.

Not only that but consider what we are doing today with oil (environmental and health), I don't think nuclear is anything worse.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Jimmy Carter did. You'd have to ask Ronald Reagan why he changed course 180 degrees.

Probably because the American public has no brains and doesn't think long term. Just look at Social Insecurity.

Social Security is one of the few examples of long term thinking. That's why Bush is trying to kill it. Long term thinking gives the Fool a headache.