Since I’ve been incautious enough to mention the N-word in the previous post, I’ll open another sandpit specifically devoted to discussions of the merits, and otherwise, of nuclear power. Any mention of this topic on other threads will be deleted and will risk bans or restrictions on the offender
Update Since it’s still going, I’ve moved it up, which should reopen comments
John Quiggin 
@Dingo
The net present value formula relates to cost although if the waste is being produced indefinitely then the benefit from producing that waste would also continue indefinitely. The important issue is what cost, if any, continues indefinitely after the benefit (energy) associated with a particular piece of waste is generated and what net present cost can be assigned to that cost. Even though the cost stream may last forever, the net present cost can be finite. However, this doesn’t mean the cost stream associated with nuclear waste must last forever.
You could take your own advice.
Er, people who get X-rays?
@Alice
I would presume that because the source is medical procedures or nuclear medicine that the patients involved expect some sort of medical benefit.
How is it careless?
@Chris O’Neill
Chris
your comment that says “but it does demonstrate that people will accept exposure to radiation for a benefit” was in response to this comment of dingos
US Doubles background radiation
So maybe “double the natural” produces no health effects, but my concern is what happens if this increase accelerates, becomes permanent, and how long can humanity permit it.
“I note that Luke Weston has said:
If you add radioactivity to [the earth] at a certain rate, then you can easily reach equilibrium, so radioactivity stays constant.”
I am not maths-based, but is this the case? I will google bateman later.
Until this is sorted out, and given all the nuclear leaks (small but repetitive), I oppose the rapid expansion of nuclear technology presently occurring and i am totally opposed to any boost obtained by some posters who want ot promote it as the solution to climate chnage (when renewables can serve).
I agree with the waste piles up on itself theory.:
You are using this comment Chris as some implication that higher radiation is fine because people will pay for it if it is of benefit to them. What is an acceptable argument for medical nuclear use does not apply to rapid expansion of nuclear use as an answer to climate change and energy sources.
I also agree with the waste piles up on itself theory. It has certainly piled up on itself in this thread.
jesus christ, you people are still going at it? Good grief, get a life.
when renewables can serve Therein lies the rub. Name a country besides Iceland that can consistently get 25% or more of its energy from non-hydro renewables on a year round basis. If there is such a country explain why they don’t get the other 75% from renewables.
On minor radiation there are times when we will be inches from smoke alarms that contain radioactive isotopes. Every year we dig up hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal we bring radiation to the surface, albeit slight. There is little sign of a slowdown in either radiation source.
@Hermit
To which we add that we fly in aircraft and build our houses on granite. As a student in shared accomodation we had our beds and makeshift bookcases on besser-blocks made from fly-ash and slag. Our road base is full of waste from coal plants.
People still lie out in the sun knowing full well that they elevate their prospects of getting malignant melanoma, don’t wear UV glasses when in full sun and so it goes.
The problem is that these processes are slow and unremarkable, whereas the idea of some visible object emitting some insidious life-sucking energy is a hell of a lot more scary.
Dear Ms Barlow (and hermit),
So how can people avoid being exposed to the nuclear leaks that are already occurring?
Is the realtionship between nuclear leaks and people, the same as from UV from sunshine?
Do you have figures on the health risks from, aircraft, granite and besser blocks? Is this the same as from accidentally vented nuke gas and liquid?
Does it help if they are “knowing full well that they elevate their propects of getting (cancer)” – or not?
I think many people, justifiably, should be scared of your “life-sucking energy”.
What is the waste from X-Rays and smoke alarms etc?
/
Firstly inappropriately priced fossil fuels is a key. And the centuries of subsidies established systems received during nation building. Then the momentum created by this and the impact of sunk costs. (Sunk costs as investment in the status quo creates a power constituency to protect their interests).
Then I’d add the structural economic bias towards centralised packaged solutions. Big investment loves certainty = monopolies of various degrees. Then on the subsidies provided to renewable, I’d consider the lack of certainty in in places like the US. On again off again subsides threatens investors and kills big projects at their conception.
Geez, what is it with X-rays etc ……….
Do you develop your heroin policy based on your experience with aspirin.
Get a life, fellows.
@Alice
I didn’t say it produced no health effects. Indeed since the two commonest artificial sources are “medical procedures” and “nuclear medicine” I would presume the intention is to achieve beneficial health effects. Why don’t you look at the web page?
If there is an increase in the vast majority of the existing exposure, i.e. medical procedures and nuclear medicine, then I’m sure the people involved will think about it.
Where is this occurring?
at enormous cost.
You will note that industrial and occupational exposure (of which nuclear electricity generation makes up a fraction) constitutes 0.1% of total exposure.
@A Lurker
I’m not sure where a lurker is coming from but perhaps he has never noticed his dentist retreating behind a door when taking X-rays of his teeth.
Probably a good idea to take your own advice.
@Chris O’Neill
Ypou claim to be replying to a comment of mine in your post at 11. “So maybe “double the natural” produces no health effects”
Lets get the citations correct Chris Oneill. I didnt make this comment.
@Alice
I think Chris Oneill – you are looking for Dingo and taking up a prior argument instead of the point I raised…I dont see any sensible response to the point I raised at comment 4 which was basically that your argument was illogical and didnt follow or respond to points made properly…but if you want to go off on a complete tangent…I guess this is a sandpit.
Im in agreement with Lurker. The trouble is the pro nuclear obsessed have had more life in here than they deserve. Up to post what? Record breaking posts…but of Prof shuts this boring thread down he will be accused of “shutting down debate”. Trouble is all the people who the religious pro nukers here were arguing with …have gone already to get a life somewhere else talking sense instead of propaganda with denialists.
The best is the iggy response.
Who is going to take responsibility for this comment:
@Alice
When all your arguments have failed, the only thing left is ad hom.
@Chris O’Neill
Chris – just keep repeating that a large nuclear expansion is the only solution to climate change. You may eventually convince yourself, if no-one else.
@Alice
And where, pray tell, do I say that?
By the way, I still don’t know who is responsible for this comment:
The point is valid that coal, oil and gas get several forms of well disguised subsidy. Arguably the absence of a CO2 pollution fee is one of those implicit subsidies. However they don’t get anything so brazen as 20% quotas, renewable energy certificates or feed-in tariffs. I suggest the whole energy biz should be rejigged so everybody gets the same deal but subject only to an overall CO2 cap. That is, if solar gets a feed-in tariff then so does nuclear. If trucks get a diesel rebate then a comparable per-km deal applies to electric vehicles and so on.
I’d guess the reason that the electrical generation system is so monolithic is to get average costs down. The pensioner who needs an air conditioner to get through a heat wave shouldn’t be forced to cut back on groceries. As for the seemingly endless discussion on alternatives to fossil fuel I guess it’s because it could be the biggest single issue of the 21st century.
@Chris O’Neill
Go back to your own reply to Dingo who made the comment – your post 40 on page 10.
Then try to follow your own logic Chris.
Fossil fuels don’t need it when they benefit from the subsidies I already summarised: https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/11/14/radioactive-sandpit/comment-page-11/#comment-271505
I have several problems with this analysis. Firstly if its about “everybody get the same deal” market level playing field argument, then renewable subsidies need four decades of dedicated cold war style funding and push through dedication to outcomes into order to be on equal subside terms.
Secondly, to make the level, “everybody get the same deal” case, then cost must be attributed to risks. This includes a market price for insurance than bears the risk of catastrophic failure.
This is not the only risk, NPP have many costs extending decades after power production ceases. Last time I looked no one has fully decommissioned a commercial scale NPP. There is also the costs of managing waste during its phases in the long waste stream. These costs are just estimated, and may be no more accurate then the estimates of commissioning sites that are notoriously blown out with consistency. A recipe for great moral hazard it ever there were one.
There is also the risk that demonstrated association between raised levels of child cancer and proximity to NPP is found to be causal link. If demonstrated this will have serious implications for NPP production.
NPP is only cheap when you exclude these costs.
Agreed, the pricing of electricity need to include a redistributive (such as progressive pricing mechanism) to provide for basic threshold level of provision. This should include (as it does to some extent) energy service provision such as home service visist and green loans (paid back via energy bill).
I should add the moral hazard potential is worse, it we don’t decomission properly, don’t manage waste properly, or if there is a causal desease link (i.e. child cancer with proimity to NPP), but one that we do not demonstrate.
Also, who pays for the Non proliferation monitoring, auditing, safe guarding etc?
Trying to “play the victim” is a tactic of last resort.
IMHO, O’Neill’s arguments are assertions – unlike other pro-nukes.
@Dingo
When all Chris Oneiil’s arguments have failed…. the only thing left to me is ad hom and ridicule Dingo. I have not resorted to the latter.
@Dingo
No, Alice’s ad hom was the tactic of last resort. Why don’t you pay attention?
What a hypocrite.
Good to see this thread is still maintaining a high standard of argument.
@Alice
Sure, if you say so.
the only thing left to me is ad hom
At least we agree you make ad hom arguments.
@Alice
You could at least say you forgot to put quotation marks in the right places. Especially when most of your post with missing quotation marks is a quotation.
@Chris O’Neill
Chris – Im sorry I forgot to put quotation marks in. Does it make you any happier?Youre still wrong Chris….all I have left is ad hom (and ridicule which I havent used yet).
For Tim at post 27 – This thread is beyond redemption and now embarrassing (all genuine participants have left but I suppose the avid pro nuclears havent noticed,,,is that what you call complete insensitivity?)…and the thread has completely exhausted itself.
Pardon me for noticing the obvious.
Alice,
This thread has highlighted that there are 2 types of people. Pronuclear radioactive contamination denialists, and the rest of us.
I think we should have equal alarmism on decommissioning costs. In the UK the practice seems to be to build the new nuclear plant next to the old one. The area remains a permanent no go zone. What about other toxic sites like our very own Homebush Bay or the Barraba asbestos mine? Even old wind farms contain concrete and steel, copper wire and perhaps transformer fluids. Intruders to these sites are more likely to harm themselves than others.
Upthread someone mentioned disposal of old ionising smoke alarms. They contain a speck of the plutonium derived isotope Am 241. My understanding is that municipal tips are OK with just one or two per dump truck load. Boxes of discarded smoke alarms would have to be introduced to the tip gradually.
@BilB
True Bilb – Proffesshor B.S. Schkeptic Pershpektiff et al and devoted students, have been very busy in here.
(Id like to acknowledge the great Don for this name, and I make no insinuations as to who the Proffesshor is and I make no apologies for now employing ridicule)
@jakerman
So this means the big investments required for renewables are never going to happen.
@Alice
You’re obviously not that sorry.
It’s hard to work out where Alice is quoting and where her own words are but here goes:
It nevertheless demonstrates that some level of radiation exposure is acceptable for a benefit. As I pointed out, industrial and occupational exposure constitutes 0.1% of total exposure. No-one has said that nuclear electricity makes up even a measurable fraction of this and it’s almost certainly a lot less than the background radiation coming from coal-fired stations that nuclear could replace.
@jakerman
I don’t know why you have this obsession with potential risks within 5 km of nuclear power stations. The solution is obvious. Don’t live within 5 km of a nuclear power station. The same applies in spades to coal-burning power stations and their coal mines which put much more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear power stations.
@Chris O’Neill
says “I don’t know why you have this obsession with potential risks within 5 km of nuclear power stations. The solution is obvious. Don’t live within 5 km of a nuclear power station.”
You can clearly see why I have resorted to ridicule.
Dont you mean Chris – “The solution is obvious. If you can afford it dont live within 5 km of a nuclear power station. We are very sorry if you bought your family home in 1980 but we are now going to put a nuclear power station in your backyard. Of course the solution is simple. You simply sell and move house.”
What arrogance Chris. The solution isnt as simple as you and your ilk suggest but I suppose you believe in user pays as well. I suppose you also believe the majority can afford to make the simple choices you propose like moving away from a nuclear facility and leaving only the most undeserving and poor to live next door. Do they matter less – do they get first choice to inhale the contamination you deny because they dont have the necessary darwinian survival skills to make the right choices in life?.
This is undeserving of ridicule even. Its almost tragic. Time to go Chris.
@Chris O’Neill
No Im not sorry.
@Alice
And where, pray tell, is someone proposing to build a nuclear power station within 5 km of homes?
I note your selective blindness on radioactive emissions from coal-burning power stations. It’s interesting that the vast majority of Uranium mining in Australia occurs at coal mines. Of course, a lot of it is burned in power stations. Choice.
What hypocrisy. What ideologically-motivated blindness.
I know. Confusion is your objective.
In 1970 the world population was about 3.5 billion with just under 4 tonnes per capita emissions. Almost 40 years later the world population is approaching 7 billion with just over 4 tonnes per capita emissions. We have more than doubled annual GHG emissions in just 40 years.
The OECD countries per capita emission have flat lined at about 10 tonnes during this time. (IEA 2010 Report)
Another 40 years of BAU, will double CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere compared to pre industrial levels, and lock us into a dangerous global temperature rise of between 4 and 7 degrees. (Hadley Centre 2008 ‘Avoiding dangerous climate change’ A belief that this will not happen is based on hope, not scientific data, evidence and logic.
Over the past 40 years Sweden has reduced per capita emissions from 10 tonnes to 5 tonnes using nuclear, hydro, biomas, renewables, a carbon tax and a whole of Government/Community approach to emission reduction. Note that nuclear and hydro produce most of their electricity.
To reduce GHG emissions by 50% on 1990 levels to keep global warming below 2 degrees, we need to learn from countries with a successful record in emission reduction. A belief that emissions can be successfully reduced, without using every non carbon technology available is also based on hope and not engineering data, evidence and logic.
@Chris O’Neill
Ill just leave you nuclear contamination denialists to chat with yourselves.
Everyone else who is still sane is bored to death by this “pseudo economic advancement of pro nuclear expansion whilst denying any contamination risk” crap numbers you and the likes of Tom Bond bring here.
@Tom Bond
You say: “…we need to learn from countries with a successful record in emission reduction. ”
Tom, one can’t learn from ‘countries’ because the word ‘country’ refers to a geo-politically defined area. But one can learn from geographers. These people will tell you that Sweden is close to the North Pole. Sweden, in contrast to Australia, is not particularly suited for solar energy!!
Ernestine Gross
From your comment I can see that learning effective ways to reduce GHG emissions is not high on your list of priorities. Australia’s per capita emissions are more than 3 times Sweden’s, so simple logic would tell us that we could learn a lot more from them, than they could from us.
@Tom Bond
It is your problem, Tom Bond, if you can see something from my comment which isn’t there.
@Alice
Typical. Gives up the argument, resorts to ad hom.
@Alice
Of course, the irony is the ignoring, if not plain denial, of nuclear contamination from coal-burning power stations.
@Chris O’Neill
Yea O’Neill, tell us all about the “nuclear contamination from coal-burning”.
By the way, as you are a denialist, there was no ad hom.
Just live with it.
Chris ONeill, no-one is denying the contamination from coal powered electricity production, quite the contrary.
As Ernestine Gross pointed out the worst outcome would be to replace one devastating form of contamination with another, Nuclear contamination.
@BilB
You ignore the question of scale. The contamination from coal harvest, transport and combustion is orders of magnitude larger in scale than anything associated with resort to nuclear power and on the other side of what is manageable from that of nuclear power. There are technically simple and economically maintainable means for managing radioactive hazmat from the nuclear fuel cycle but no such means for the coal fuel cycle. The coal fuel cycle is also marked by very significant, persistent, foreseeable, contemporary human morbidity, as we were again reminded last week in New Zealand. Nearly as many people died there as at Chernobyl. Unlike Chernobyl, we know that such incidents will recur (in China about 2600 have died in the last 12 months in similar fashion) and there are few economically viable means for significantly abating these hazards. People will continue to suffer and die from toxic exposure to particulate from transport and combustion of coal.
So your claim that the two are comparable is simply wrong. Your advocacy is for means that in practice demand more coal mining, or at best resort to gas in some cases. That is a far worse result for humanity now and into the future than a rapid transition to nuclear power.