Octopus Overlords

Given the nuclear crisis in Japan (check the earthquake thread in EBG for details if you've had your head buried in the sand for the last few days), I figured I would start a thread on policy of nuclear power:

Here are some US Senators behaving somewhat rationally for a change:

Schumer wrote:"We are going to have to see what happens here -- obviously still things are happening -- but the bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil in the other half of the globe," he said. "Libya showed that. Prices are up, our economy is being hurt by it, or could be hurt by it. So I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I've always said it has to be done safely and carefully.

"I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy," McConnell said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) offered a slightly different take on the issue, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that he believes the United States should halt permits for new nuclear power plants until they can determine what went wrong with nuclear reactors in Japan. Still, he said he supports nuclear power in the larger sense.

Of course, I say that supporting nuclear power, but they have to be built safely, with increased redundancy and in secure locations that are geographically stable, and not built by the lowest bidder.

Maybe I should wait for the consequences to be clear to ask this, but has anyone's opinion on nuclear power changed as a result of what's going on in Japan?

I marched against nuclear power in the 1970s (even before 3 Mile Island) because of its potential danger and extravagant cost. All reactor designs back then were effectively experimental. Over the years I was persuaded that new designs are safer and that the risks are outweighed by the well-known detriments of fossil fuel accidents and pollution. My opinion strengthened as the fact of global warming became certain, so that waste disposal is my main remaining reservation.

I'm not reassessing that opinion until I see how the disasters in Japan play out.

Kraken wrote:I marched against nuclear power in the 1970s (even before 3 Mile Island) because of its potential danger and extravagant cost. All reactor designs back then were effectively experimental. Over the years I was persuaded that new designs are safer and that the risks are outweighed by the well-known detriments of fossil fuel accidents and pollution. My opinion strengthened as the fact of global warming became certain, so that waste disposal is my main remaining reservation.

I'm not reassessing that opinion until I see how the disasters in Japan play out.

This pretty much sums me up, too, if you replace "marched against nuclear power in the 1970s" with "smugly dismissed nuclear power in the 1980s."

While I don't think that nuclear power is the replacement for fossil fuels that many do (i.e. you can't make plastics out of nuclear power), I generally support the notion of using nuclear power for electricity generation rather than fossil fuel based solutions (although aren't most of those coal fired plants, which aren't based on foreign sources?).

Now is not the time to make knee-jerk reactions against nuclear power. Certainly there are risks, but in this case, the problem appears to be the worst earthquake in Japan in the last 150 years or so. There are plenty of locations that aren't really subject to 8.9 earthquakes.

RunningMn9 wrote:While I don't think that nuclear power is the replacement for fossil fuels that many do (i.e. you can't make plastics out of nuclear power), I generally support the notion of using nuclear power for electricity generation rather than fossil fuel based solutions (although aren't most of those coal fired plants, which aren't based on foreign sources?).

Now is not the time to make knee-jerk reactions against nuclear power. Certainly there are risks, but in this case, the problem appears to be the worst earthquake in Japan in the last 150 years or so. There are plenty of locations that aren't really subject to 8.9 earthquakes.

In particular, the area in the United States least prone to 8.9 magnitude quakes (the southeast) is also the area where renewable or alternative forms of electricity are not feasible (such as wind, solar, etc).

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb first made this argument in Fooled by Randomness, an engaging look at the history and reasons for our predilection for self-deception when it comes to statistics. Now, in The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable, he focuses on that most dismal of sciences, predicting the future. Forecasting is not just at the heart of Wall Street, but it’s something each of us does every time we make an insurance payment or strap on a seat belt.

The problem, Nassim explains, is that we place too much weight on the odds that past events will repeat (diligently trying to follow the path of the "millionaire next door," when unrepeatable chance is a better explanation). Instead, the really important events are rare and unpredictable. He calls them Black Swans, which is a reference to a 17th century philosophical thought experiment. In Europe all anyone had ever seen were white swans; indeed, "all swans are white" had long been used as the standard example of a scientific truth. So what was the chance of seeing a black one? Impossible to calculate, or at least they were until 1697, when explorers found Cygnus atratus in Australia.

Also, the risks posed by nukes have to be compared accurately to the risks -- health, environmental, economic, social, geopolitical, etc. -- posed by other energy sources.

A meltdown is scary. But is it scary as the Gulf Oil Spill and a Middle East military intervention?

RunningMn9 wrote: (although aren't most of those coal fired plants, which aren't based on foreign sources?).

Wiki to the rescue: "From 1992 to 2005 some 270,000 MWe (Megawatt electric) of new gas-fired plant were built, but only 14,000 MWe of new nuclear and coal-fired capacity came on line, mostly coal, with 2,315 MWe of that being nuclear." Coal is still #1 by a big margin but gas is where the growth is.

Fuel oil is used mostly for heating, and mostly in the northeast.

Leaving geopolitics out of it, nuclear shines in being non-polluting (except for that pesky radioactive waste that we politely ignore nowadays), particularly compared to coal. This advantage will become even more appealing if transportation moves from gasoline to electricity in the next couple of decades. We don't save a whole lot of carbon if we're still burning fossil fuels to charge up our cars.

Just a note. The reactors that have had problems are the some of the oldest designs. One of them was even planned to be retired this March. There are a number of other nukes in the earthquake area and they've suffered no problems because of their superior designs. If anything, this event proves the safety of more modern designs, even resisting a 9.0 earthquake. So if there's a message it's don't build any nukes with 40 year old designs (as if we would) and modern nukes are very safe and disaster resistant. Of course that's probably what you're NOT going to hear but it ought to be said.

I have constantly been refreshing for news on the nuclear plants. I can't help but imagine those workers fighting disaster in there, knowing there could be another hydrogen explosion or that they may be exposed to radiation, as apparently some workers were already evacuated. Those guys have some serious stones. And yeah, it has made me think about the what the policy in the US should be.

I think McConnell has it right with that quote. It's impossible to know anything for certain as this point. Let's not overreact.

On nuclear policy I am generally against the status quo. When people they say they support nuclear and you ask what they mean, it usually comes down to guarantees and power subsidies with some hand waving about removing red tape. I don't believe having the NRC inspect plants and validate designs is an excessive amount of red tape - I think it's necessary given the history of the technology and the risks. Fukushima does reinforces that for me. We do need independent inspectors. I don't believe nuclear needs more financial incentives provided by the taxpayer. Ultimately I'm not against nuclear in particular but against policy that singles out nuclear in a top down decision for subsidies and guarantees.

The federal government socializes the risk of investing in nuclear power while pri-vatizing profits. This same formula drove the frenzied speculation that cratered the housing and financial markets. What might it cause with nuclear power?

See: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 08830.html" target="_blank

So what should the policy be? The government should setup the playing field, not pick the winners.

There are damn good reasons to like nuclear -- it doesn't rely on foreign energy sources and it has lower emissions. Luckily for us there is a consensus among policy wonks as the best way to do get this result from power generation, even among the left and the right. On emissions: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/busin ... .html?_r=1" target="_blank

Using a Pigovian tax to address global warming is also an old idea. It was proposed as far back as 1992 by Martin S. Feldstein on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Once chief economist to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Feldstein has devoted much of his career to studying how high tax rates distort incentives and impede economic growth. But like most other policy wonks, he appreciates that some taxes align private incentives with social costs and move us toward better outcomes.

Those vying for elected office, however, are reluctant to sign on to this agenda. Their political consultants are no fans of taxes, Pigovian or otherwise. Republican consultants advise using the word “tax” only if followed immediately by the word “cut.” Democratic consultants recommend the word “tax” be followed by “on the rich.”

Yet this natural aversion to carbon taxes can be overcome if the revenue from the tax is used to reduce other taxes. By itself, a carbon tax would raise the tax burden on anyone who drives a car or uses electricity produced with fossil fuels, which means just about everybody. Some might fear this would be particularly hard on the poor and middle class. But Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts, has shown how revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce payroll taxes in a way that would leave the distribution of total tax burden approximately unchanged.

Taxes could similarly optimize any other aspects of power that we want to address, foreign dependence, other pollutants, etc.

So the policy is: price the things we like or dislike about power sources into the market. Then put some taxpayer money into a national power grid to create a large competitive power market. This could be done privately, but the political difficulties of building long distance lines across local communities makes it almost impossible unless you go offshore Google is.

With that policy we get the best power for our money, in every location. Nuclear is way more competitive against oil and coal with that system. And with a better national power grid it is a lot easier to find sites for nuclear plants -- the range of possibilities is much greater if they don't need to be right next to the market they sell to. I expect nuclear will do decent in some markets where other sources are not available. But if nuclear has those advantage and still loses against competitors then it means the alternatives are genuinely better.

This does mean phasing out subsidies for solar or wind as well.

All that said, there is a special difficulty in attaining private insurance with nuclear as the worst case scenario is just that bad. The government should provide some help here against liability. But it shouldn't provide insurance against investors losing their lunch.

Kraken wrote:Wiki to the rescue: "From 1992 to 2005 some 270,000 MWe (Megawatt electric) of new gas-fired plant were built, but only 14,000 MWe of new nuclear and coal-fired capacity came on line, mostly coal, with 2,315 MWe of that being nuclear." Coal is still #1 by a big margin but gas is where the growth is.

Yes, natural gas as well - but like coal, don't we have more than enough of both domestically? In other words, we aren't dependent on foreign oil for electricity generation, so using that argument to build more nuclear power plants doesn't make as much sense (at least not until we are all driving around in electric vehicles).

OK, let's make the question a bit trickier. Would you still support Nuclear Power if a plant were built, say, 10 miles away from you? Lets take "I'd move away" off the table.

RunningMn9 wrote: There are plenty of locations that aren't really subject to 8.9 earthquakes.

Unfortunately for Japan, none of those locations are in Japan.

Defiant wrote:OK, let's make the question a bit trickier. Would you still support Nuclear Power if a plant were built, say, 10 miles away from you? Lets take "I'd move away" off the table.

I grew up five miles from a plant. I'm all for that source of energy when they're located appropriately (i.e., not on major earthquake fault lines, not located where hurricanes are going to be a periodic threat, etc.). Of course, my other precondition is an actionable plan for storing the waste product, which our country has fucked up for far too long.

The Meal wrote: Of course, my other precondition is an actionable plan for storing the waste product, which our country has fucked up for far too long.

We don't have the best record with coal ash waste either.

Coal ash contains large quantities of toxic metals, including 44 tons of mercury, 4601 tons of arsenic, 970 tons of beryllium, 496 tons of cadmium, 6275 tons of chromium, 6533 tons of nickel, and 1305 tons of selenium. In 2006, coal plants in the United States produced almost 72 million tons of fly ash, up 50 percent since 1993.

RunningMn9 wrote:There are plenty of locations that aren't really subject to 8.9 earthquakes.

This location was thought to be one until it happened:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-sci ... mblor.html" target="_blank

Q: Will this change the way scientists look at earthquakes around the world?
A: It already has, by expanding the list of places where magnitude 9 "megaquakes" could happen, Hough said. "We had a sense that these couldn't happen along any subduction zone - that it took a certain geometry, a bigger zone," she said. "One lesson is that these are possible in more places than we thought."

Not in my backyard! I am fine with siting one 10 miles from The Meal, though.

Oh you mean seriously? My chief objection would be the impact on my home's value, not the actual risk, which I know to be minuscule. The shopping mall a mile away is probably a bigger risk from pollution and traffic danger. If the nuke plant came with tax and/or other direct incentives to offset my loss of wealth, I'd at least be open to the idea.

Defiant wrote:OK, let's make the question a bit trickier. Would you still support Nuclear Power if a plant were built, say, 10 miles away from you? Lets take "I'd move away" off the table.

I've got two in my area not as close as 10 miles, one is about 15 and another is more like 25 or 30 but I have no problem now or even if they were just 10 miles away.

Downwind or Upwind? That would be a big factor.

It's not an either-or proposition for me, and I expect it isn't for most people. It's just one element that to consider along with everything else. Maybe -1 point on a 10 point scale? More points off if the plant had a history of incompetence and cover-ups, like Vermont Yankee does around here.

25 or 30 miles and it wouldn't even factor in unless there was some particular evidence suggesting otherwise.

I think part of this is very psychological. I know that the earthquake and tsunami will kill more people, but once that has happened, it's over and you can rebuild.

For a nuclear disaster, you don't know if you came out alright. Ever. Even if you survive and test out ok, will your food? Your water? Your family and friends? Have you been told the truth about it? It seems far more psychologically disastrous.

SimCity taught me not to put my nuclear plants downtown. Other than that, I'm not sure where they go.

No issues with a nearby nuke plant. I'd rather have one of those than some smoke belching, smoke stack skylined factory any day.

I live in oil country. Do you know what the refineries do to the asthma rates?

With the worsening of problem in Japan since the original post, I now think it would be better if new permits were halted until Fukushima is analyzed. While we don't know what exactly happened or is happening there, some serious stuff has been hitting the fan. Assumptions about things that should not be possible have been overturned. It would only be prudent to reexamine current designs.

This wasn't the Soviets skimping on safety measures and then completely botching procedure when there was a problem. That should worry us a bit.

Quaro wrote:With the worsening of problem in Japan since the original post, I now think it would be better if new permits were halted until Fukushima is analyzed. While we don't know what exactly happened or is happening there, some serious stuff has been hitting the fan. Assumptions about things that should not be possible have been overturned. It would only be prudent to reexamine current designs.

This wasn't the Soviets skimping on safety measures and then completely botching procedure when there was a problem. That should worry us a bit.

Therein is a major problem. It isn't a modern design, in fact it is rather outdated. The first six units there were built in the seventies.

Yes, but a week ago I would not have believed a crisis of this magnitude, with this much radiation release, was possible at any currently running plants in first world.

Has anyone seen a comparison between a total melt down, to say an above ground nuclear detonation? IS it many times worse in fallout then Hiroshima , Nagasaki or any of the hundreds of above ground tests ? Just would like to know how bad it is.

nation number of above ground detonations, years, total yield
United States, 216, 1945-1962, 153.8 mt
U.S.S.R., 214, 1949-1962, 281.6 mt
United Kingdom, 21 1952-1958, 10.8 mt
France, 46 1960-1974, 11.4 mt
P.R.C., 23 1964-1980, 21.5 mt
South Africa, 1, 1979, 0.003 mt

Smoove_B wrote:The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb first made this argument in Fooled by Randomness, an engaging look at the history and reasons for our predilection for self-deception when it comes to statistics. Now, in The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable, he focuses on that most dismal of sciences, predicting the future. Forecasting is not just at the heart of Wall Street, but it’s something each of us does every time we make an insurance payment or strap on a seat belt.

The problem, Nassim explains, is that we place too much weight on the odds that past events will repeat (diligently trying to follow the path of the "millionaire next door," when unrepeatable chance is a better explanation). Instead, the really important events are rare and unpredictable. He calls them Black Swans, which is a reference to a 17th century philosophical thought experiment. In Europe all anyone had ever seen were white swans; indeed, "all swans are white" had long been used as the standard example of a scientific truth. So what was the chance of seeing a black one? Impossible to calculate, or at least they were until 1697, when explorers found Cygnus atratus in Australia.

Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail - and Why We Believe Them Anyway

The core of Gardner’s account comes courtesy of the research of Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at the University of California. In a nutshell, Tetlock determined that “experts” in any given field were just slightly better at making predictions than a dart-throwing chimp. In addition, the more certain an expert was of a predicted outcome, and the bigger their media profile, the less accurate the prediction was likely to be.

Looking at the results of a variety of psychology experiments and some of the more spectacular flame-outs from recent years (population doomster Paul Ehrlich is given a particularly rough ride), Gardner examines Tetlock’s paradoxical findings and shows why being forearmed doesn’t protect us much against those seeking to forewarn us. Topics covered include why and to what extent the future must always be uncertain, why smart people make dumb predictions (and how they rationalize their mistakes), and why we are so easily conned by glib “hedgehogs” (experts who are certain of one big thing) and less impressed by thoughtful “foxes” (experts comfortable with their doubts and limitations).

According to the report I get every year from ComEd, over 50% of the electricity supplied to my home comes from nuclear power generation.

I've always thought nuclear power was the way to go and wouldn't have any issues living near a plant. I'd prefer not to be able to see it (yes, I'm a snob), but otherwise would have no restrictions.

stessier wrote:I've always thought nuclear power was the way to go and wouldn't have any issues living near a plant. I'd prefer not to be able to see it (yes, I'm a snob), but otherwise would have no restrictions.

Not a snob. Correct term is NIMBY.

I lived and slept within a few yards of one for six years of my life and had no problems. No problem living across the street from one.

Of course like any good capitalist I would like to be compensated for living so close.

UsulofDoom wrote:

stessier wrote:I've always thought nuclear power was the way to go and wouldn't have any issues living near a plant. I'd prefer not to be able to see it (yes, I'm a snob), but otherwise would have no restrictions.

Not a snob. Correct term is NIMBY.

His opinion appears to be more concerned with aesthetics than because of the nuclear nature of the plant.

Defiant wrote:

UsulofDoom wrote:

stessier wrote:I've always thought nuclear power was the way to go and wouldn't have any issues living near a plant. I'd prefer not to be able to see it (yes, I'm a snob), but otherwise would have no restrictions.

Not a snob. Correct term is NIMBY.

His opinion appears to be more concerned with aesthetics than because of the nuclear nature of the plant.

NILOSOMBY.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Defiant wrote:

UsulofDoom wrote:

stessier wrote:I've always thought nuclear power was the way to go and wouldn't have any issues living near a plant. I'd prefer not to be able to see it (yes, I'm a snob), but otherwise would have no restrictions.

Not a snob. Correct term is NIMBY.

His opinion appears to be more concerned with aesthetics than because of the nuclear nature of the plant.

NILOSOMBY.

Or FY. (Not dirty.)

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Defiant wrote:

UsulofDoom wrote:

stessier wrote:I've always thought nuclear power was the way to go and wouldn't have any issues living near a plant. I'd prefer not to be able to see it (yes, I'm a snob), but otherwise would have no restrictions.

Not a snob. Correct term is NIMBY.

His opinion appears to be more concerned with aesthetics than because of the nuclear nature of the plant.

NILOSOMBY.

This.

We bought a house very close to a cell tower. Thing was huge, but the way the house was positioned, we never saw it. Always would surprise us driving out of the complex and seeing the thing lurking up there.

Another problem with nuclear fission plants is that the US doesn't have a lot of nuke resources and we would still be dependent upon imported fuel. I may be mis-remembering, but I though the greatest deposits were in Australia (like 8x what US has). So, we will eventually be back in the same scenario.

I think we need to really invest in fusion tech and in renewable resources.

Cylus Maxii wrote:Another problem with nuclear fission plants is that the US doesn't have a lot of nuke resources and we would still be dependent upon imported fuel. I may be mis-remembering, but I though the greatest deposits were in Australia (like 8x what US has). So, we will eventually be back in the same scenario.

I think we need to really invest in fusion tech and in renewable resources.

Canada has almost as much as Austrailia. We can take that.

We'll be happy to sell it to you at a very reasonable price. After you remove some of your tariffs in other areas of course.

noxiousdog wrote:

Cylus Maxii wrote:Another problem with nuclear fission plants is that the US doesn't have a lot of nuke resources and we would still be dependent upon imported fuel. I may be mis-remembering, but I though the greatest deposits were in Australia (like 8x what US has). So, we will eventually be back in the same scenario.

I think we need to really invest in fusion tech and in renewable resources.

Canada has almost as much as Austrailia. We can take that.

The lack of nearby resources doesn't seem to hamper fossil fuel use .

Indeed, Canada has lots. And Canada and Aussie-land are likely just a *little* easier to deal with and a slight bit more stable than your average crude oil producing country...

Cylus Maxii wrote:Another problem with nuclear fission plants is that the US doesn't have a lot of nuke resources and we would still be dependent upon imported fuel. I may be mis-remembering, but I though the greatest deposits were in Australia (like 8x what US has). So, we will eventually be back in the same scenario.

I think we need to really invest in fusion tech and in renewable resources.

Even if that's a concern in the near (relatively speaking) future, I'd much rather be paying developed countries than some of the ones we currently pay, given issues like money going to fund terrorism to instability driving up prices.