Future Enery use & Global Warming

[perry]

I do not know how many of you look at the "Around the World" forum.

But if you are interested in future energy policy, the types of power plants built, and global warming... I have written and posted most of my thoughs based on tons of research on the subject in the "Around the World" forum.

OK, it''s book lenght; and Parts 1, 2, 3A, and 3B are posted (did you really think a good discussion would be short).

Part 4 will probably not be posted till next weekend.

Thought some of you would like to know.

Perry

 

[pricescope]

Very interesting read Perry, thank you.

Did not find anything concerning Global Warming, which depends mostly on amount of utilized energy, not on the amount spent on producing it.

 

[Regular Guy]

Yes, Perry, will you write about Global warming; I'd be interested (and also recently see a week will be devoted to this upcoming summer's NY Chattaqua on the topic)? (edited to add...reflecting a day later, I'm thinking your consistent review of CO2 emmissions, and discussion of the inferrences of this, was designed to be dead on for global warming, right? Maybe you didn't really intend to let the global warming part otherwise flourish in your post, but address instead the engine for this phenomena, which is altogether reasonable).

Only a few comments, as the discussion is quite detailed.

In your part I, were you serious about the kinds of adjustments you think it would be prudent to both make as individuals, and to expect large number of individuals to make as consumers of electricity? Doesn't seem reasonable. Public policy should be reasonable. For example, the argument to good citizenship: one vote counts. Really, generally, one vote hardly counts. But, as a public policy message, it is consistent with the larger result you desire, and this seems fine. Alternately, if one or a small group of households behaves in a very use constricted way, if it remains a small population that rations, the end result would be for nought. That would be my expectation. And, isn't it consistent with most public messages to communities for people to take public transportation. It's not successful, right? Too much work to coordinate, etc.

Perry, it's both a tribute to you, and to Pricescope, that your piece has come into existence. Good detailed analysis. And where? A site dedicated to diamonds and gems!

A final note: to astute readers, you'll see I know very little about diamonds, but like to determine areas of sensitivity, ask good questions, and motivate answers. I still may not understand all the answers, but derive a sense of benefit from the "hit" from the wisdom of the responses. It satisfies.

Perry, nuclear energy is enough of a different animal that many people are alarmed by it. Most of us laypeople have understood that "things nuclear" can wipe out the planet. Is there no sufficient association with this concern to have a partnered concern about the development of nuclear energy?

Otherwise, I appreciate your throwing detailed light on this interesting topic, and to Pricescope, to create an environment that both accommodates the piece, and motivates Perry for sharing.

Regards,

 

[perry]

Thanks for the comlement.

I do understand that relatively few will read the whole thing - at least what has been written so far; as "Part 4" is not yet written and I did not have time this weekend and it may be another couple of weeks before I can focus on it for a day or two (future transportation options). (The first 3 parts are in 4 separate postings - which represent a week or so of research and several days of writing)

When I am done with "Part 4" I will probably do a shorter summary article;

I did make some mistakes - mainly so far not including certain bits and pieces and some organizational issues. So I will briefly address your points:

Yes, I intended the discussion on CO2 emmissions to be my discussion on global warming. I now know that I need to expand that and explain it better.

As far as adjustments that people will make: I think that it is realsitic for people to reduce some electrical usage and change some transportation options for the future. In reality the change to nuclear power will take 40 - 60 years to fully implement. In that amount of time I do expect our usage patterns to also change.

" Perry, nuclear energy is enough of a different animal that many people are alarmed by it. Most of us laypeople have understood that "things nuclear" can wipe out the planet. Is there no sufficient association with this concern to have a partnered concern about the development of nuclear energy? "
I have always been interested in how the public as a whole totally accepts certain risk (Chemicals, pollution) and then are extreemly picky about others.

Can "Things Nuclear" wipe out the planet? Full scale multinational atomic warfare just might (and the actual worldwide threat is the dust cloud blocking sunlight for a number of years - not radiation). Othewise, significant nuclear damage is a local phenomia with relatively short term implications. Heroshima and Nagasaki relatively quickly repopulated most of the city. Chernobyl has a limited off limit area (and wildlife is booming in the area) - even though traces of its released radiative materials spread worldwide in the northern hemishpere, and most fell in europe (the people of europe are doing quite well). As discussed in the article; western style containment buildings would prevent the vast majority of any such release on all but the old soviet designed reactors - even if they were to somehow crack of othewise leak.

I had actully put into the draft, and then removed it, a section explaining that the worst nuclear waste problems this country and the world have is from the weapons programs. The amount of waste from power reactors is a small fration of what the weapons programs produced. Everyone accepts that the goverment is cleaning up the weapons sites and adequately disposing of the "stuff" (at least in the US). No one is claiming that they need a 10,000, 50,000, or 1 million year standard on safety for what they are currently and will be burying in shallow landfills. The governemt has direct buried intact used reactor fuel, several melted reactor cores. Planned for "glassification" and buriel is the "high level" waste left over from disolving used reactor fuel to extract plutonium for bombs. So why is civilian power reactor fuel so difficult to handle in the US - why does it have completely different disposal standards?

I am not claiming that a nuclear plant could not have a problem, or even that the older designs could not even melt down the core (if something stupid is done). This should have minimal affect the local area - if any - because fo the conatiment building (not saying that people and the press would not panic; and I suspect there would be more danger from the panic than from plant radiation). Should their be a release - it would be substaintially smaller than what happened at Chernobyl (no conataiment building); and the likely hood of contamination of anyting but a relatively small area (couple square miles) to the point of not safe to live in for several years is remote (note that most nuclear plants in the US are somewhat remote from major population centers).

The biggest actual rist - that could be carried by the wind fairly far would be a large release of radioactive iodine in certain situations - which could damage thyroids. That is a relaively minor medical condition and many people already take hormone replacement drugs for damaged thyroids allowing them to live normal lives. I do note that every power plant in the US is outfitted with systems that are designed to capture and convert most of the iodine before it could be released (this is also the reason that potasium iodine (KI) is stocked by emergency planning arround nuclear power plants - taking KI 30 minutes to several hours before the wind could get to you with an iodine plume will essentially protect your thyroid (it will fill it up so that it does not need more). Iodine decays fast, and is not a concern after a relatively short period of time (I think several days - without looking it up).

Note that the US tends to plan for the "worst case" (nuclear power plants have to build contaiment buildings and have "worst case" evacuation plans ready to execute). Note that reseach reactors, nor do certain military facilities have to have containment buildings or evacuation plans. No one seems concerned that almost none of the research reactors or military facilities are in contaiment buildings.... without local area evacuation plans and never-ending drills.

Many other countries with nuclear plants do not have the evacuation plans like the US has. Most do not have the plant security that the US plants have (you can drive you car up to most nuclear plants in the world outside of the US and get right up to the plant and in many cases walk right into it (like many fossil plants) - much less any armed guards.

Any new plants will be much safer than the existing ones.

Finally, I note that towards the end of this past week the World Nuclear Association published and article claiming that nuclear generation is the cheapest baseload power to build and operate in the world, and cited studies comparing the cost of construction and operation of the other baseload plants (coal, oil/gas). So why would we build coal plants that emit an whole range of harmfull and envionmentally damaging things? It is nice that I posted my research before that article.

For those who wish to comment - please read the part on Future energy - nuclear power in "Around the World" forum to ensure you (I believe it is Part 3B).

Perry

 

[Regular Guy]

Perry,

On the whole, your positive "what good can we make of this" attitude, and past reflections on "what went right" with hurricane Katrina, etc., are really well placed, I think. Alternately, for those trying to get a perspective on the perspective you bring...

Date: 12/4/2005 10:50:26 PM
Author: perry

Can ''Things Nuclear'' wipe out the planet? Full scale multinational atomic warfare just might (and the actual worldwide threat is the dust cloud blocking sunlight for a number of years - not radiation). Othewise, significant nuclear damage is a local phenomia with relatively short term implications. Heroshima and Nagasaki relatively quickly repopulated most of the city. Chernobyl has a limited off limit area (and wildlife is booming in the area) - even though traces of its released radiative materials spread worldwide in the northern hemishpere, and most fell in europe (the people of europe are doing quite well). As discussed in the article; western style containment buildings would prevent the vast majority of any such release on all but the old soviet designed reactors - even if they were to somehow crack of othewise leak.

I don''t know, Perry. Such thoughts, like in yellow above, seems like they might come out of the war room from Dr. Strangelove.

While you''re giving us perspective, it may be useful for us to "check in," and make sure we know the implications of what is being ruled into and out of that perspective.

BTW, by preference, in our house, we keep the temps up pretty high, as a function of our comfort level. We wouldn''t do too well living in the house Jimmy Carter would have had us living in, with sweaters and all, in the winter. It''s possible that raising our consciousness would have an impact on this. Not sure.

Many thanks for furrowing your brow on this.

 

[perry]

That comment was in response to your comment about the fear that nuclear things can wipe the world out.

When looking at perspectives: you really must compare all the data - not selective bits and pieces.

I''m not sure that the nuclear disasters (including use of the atom bomb in WWII) would rate that significanat if you were to compile a list of all manmade disasters - and the effects on the populations of the areas (and I include the firebombing of cities in WWII, and the use of chemical weapons in WWI in that list).

Most "Disasters" tend to be local and shortlived on the overall effects (short being less than 20 years).

I will admit that on an "emotional" scale that nuclear disasters rate high on an emotional list.

However, Poor personal and public policy is made when decisions are based on "emotion" without ballancing it with the more factual.

Global warming and certain pollution effects are not just a local issue; although how it affects each area is local.

As far as nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants: Their is really no connection between the two. Neither is their a connection between bombs and fertilizer (We do not end the fertilzer business becasue someone can build a bomb out of fertilizer, in fact most anyone with hardware store items can build a bomb out of fertilizer). You cannot even buile a bomb from power plant fuel (unless you run it through a multi billion dollar separation plant).

Nuclear fuel also makes a poor terriost weapon. Their are other more accessable (very easy to get) - and more damaging things - to use to build the hypothetical "dirty bomb" (a bomb that scatters radioactive particles in an area).

As far as how you live and what temperature you live in and what you drive: Feel free to make whatever choice you wish. That does not prevent others from pointing out that their are other choices out their.

Perry