Want zero carbon emissions? Go nuclear, economics professor says

Feb 14, 2013 by Marjorie Howard
“In our analysis, which is a pretty sophisticated economic model, we are saying that nuclear might be quite good until we find cheaper alternatives,” says Ujjayant Chakravorty. Credit: Kelvin Ma

(Phys.org)—Nuclear power often inspires fear and loathing, no more so than among environmentalists, who have long decried the potential dangers and the still-unsolved problem of what to do with nuclear waste. Consumers have their doubts as well. The memory of major accidents such as those at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, most recently, Fukushima Daiichi in Japan leaves many regular folks cringing at the prospect of relying on nuclear energy to light and heat their homes.

But has caused even some of the most ardent foes to reconsider: unlike oil, natural gas and coal, don't emit . And continues to improve, making plants cheaper to build and safer to operate, all of which leaves a potential opening for this long-spurned energy source.

Ujjayant Chakravorty, a professor of economics in the School of Arts and Sciences, is an expert on energy economics, and last year co-authored an article with two European researchers in the Journal of Public Economic Theory exploring the question of using nuclear energy to promote climate stabilization.

Tufts Now: What's the best form of clean energy?

Ujjayant Chakravorty: As economists, we always say there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want clean energy, something has to give. Solar power and are expensive and are not completely free of problems. Drive around a wind power facility, and it's noisy; plus birds are killed when they collide with the turbines. Right now wind and solar provide only about 1 percent of the supply. has major environmental impacts. The big concern in New Zealand, which relies on hydropower, is the impact on its rivers and mountains; people there fear it is destroying the ecosystem. China's Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydropower project, displaced more than a million people and caused environmental problems..

So what's the best way to cope with climate change?

We will need many options. One technology won't be the solution. In our analysis, which is a pretty sophisticated economic model, we are saying that nuclear might be quite good until we find cheaper alternatives.

What are the advantages of nuclear power?

If you look at where base load power comes from—the least amount of energy we need to provide power—you need a major source, something that is non-stop. Nuclear provides non-stop generation. It's not like depending on sun or wind. Nuclear plants are available day in and day out, and they don't emit greenhouse gases.

How about the dangers?

If you look at the history of nuclear energy, people are afraid of the big catastrophe situations like Chernobyl or Fukushima, which was affected by an earthquake and tsunami. But these plants didn't have engineering failures. What happened at Chernobyl was a case of mismanagement. People get complacent, the work gets routine, and they take shortcuts. In Japan, the nuclear plant was old and was supposed to be decommissioned. It was a perfect storm, in a sense. It was not that the plant collapsed—it shouldn't have been operating under those circumstances in the first place. So it was not a technological problem, but lack of proper care.

How do you deal with human failure at nuclear plants?

There are some new reactor designs that can prevent the inner core from melting and causing large-scale damage, but human failure remains a relevant issue.

How much is nuclear power relied on around the world now?

The nuclear industry has been strong for many decades. Nuclear capacity has increased in the United States and continues to increase around the world, largely because of enhanced efficiency and less down time spent on maintenance. We have about 110 nuclear power plants in the United States, and 16 more are in various stages of design or approval. Worldwide, in the past four decades, it's been growing at 12 percent a year, which is significant annual growth.

Isn't Germany ending it use of nuclear power?

Germany will abandon its nuclear plants by 2036, and is already planning to build more coal-fired plants to make up the deficit. Germany currently gets about 17 percent of its electricity from nuclear, but France gets about 80 percent from it. That keeps French carbon emissions down.

How do we safely dispose of nuclear waste from power plants?

This problem has not yet been solved, and yes, it's an issue, involving not only technology but also politics. But if you put the waste down deep enough, technically it can stay there safely. But there are other ideas, too. In our paper, we investigated plants where they are able to remove plutonium waste and re-use it. There are 20 pilot plants like this in the world that can recycle the waste. It's experimental, but many scientists think this is one way to go. Nuclear technology is not static, and there are various measures to take care of problems; if we don't build new plants the technology will not evolve. Newer plants are much safer than older plants.

Aren't nuclear plants expensive?

Yes, it is expensive to build nuclear plants, about $10 billion per plant, and there is concern about liability, so the government essentially has to buy insurance for companies to build these plants. However, once you build it, the plant goes on and on. Some plants in the United States run for about 40 years and are licensed again and can run for another 40 years, so they can operate for a huge amount of time.

Explore further: After nuclear phase-out, Germany debates scrapping coal

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Japan vows to continue nuclear plant exports

Aug 05, 2011

Japan said Friday it will continue exporting atomic power plants, despite uncertainty over its own use of them as it continues to grapple with a crisis at the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant.

Swiss protest nuclear power

May 23, 2011

About 20,000 people took part in an anti-nuclear demonstration in north Switzerland on Sunday ahead of a government decision on the future of atomic energy in the country.

Britain looks at new nuclear plants

May 24, 2007

The British government says it will run out of power in the near future unless it increases its number of nuclear power plants in the country.

The future of nuclear energy

Mar 06, 2012

Last March, the world watched closely as Japan struggled to contain a series of equipment failures, hydrogen explosions and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

80% in Japan 'support nuclear phase-out'

Mar 18, 2012

Eighty percent of Japanese want to phase out the country's reliance on nuclear power and eventually eliminate it, a poll said Sunday, a year after Japan was hit by a massive nuclear disaster.

Recommended for you

New battery technology for electric vehicles

Nov 21, 2014

Scientists at the Canadian Light Source are on the forefront of battery technology using cheaper materials with higher energy and better recharging rates that make them ideal for electric vehicles (EVs).

Company powers up with food waste

Nov 19, 2014

Garden products company Richgro is using Western Australian food waste to power their operations in a new zero-waste system.

User comments : 67

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AstroNut
3.7 / 5 (16) Feb 14, 2013
One reason nuclear is so expensive is that anti-nuke people delay construction, thus extending payback time for loans and increasing the amount paid in interest.

Also, this guy seems to denounce older plants for being extended past their design lifetimes, then states the same issue as a plus because they can "operate for a huge amount of time."

Seems a bit confusing.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2013

Seems a bit confusing.


Not all nuclear reactors are alike. Some of them were designed for upgrades and extended maintenance - others weren't. There are a number of nuclear powerplants in the world that are well past what anyone considered when they were built.

A great many of the ex-soviet nuclear powerplants for example employ designs where you can't even get to some parts of the reactor to check if it's still fine.
Grallen
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2013
There is a difference between "should have been decommissioned" and "relicensed".
CapitalismPrevails
2.7 / 5 (20) Feb 14, 2013
The problem is there is no free market in nuclear power. I think the power utility companies are legally mandated to purchase more expensive power from nuclear power plants. Also, no bank loan out money to build a nuclear plant because the liability would be too great. That's why they are financed by government loan guarantees. If the government had chosen to stay out of the nuclear industry and had just stayed inside the realm of the military, we might be running on LFTRs right now.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (20) Feb 14, 2013
Less carbon emissions and an extra appendage, it's a no lose situation.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2013
One reason nuclear is so expensive is that anti-nuke people delay construction

You are aware that the stuff has been expensive even in times where people weren't protesting it?
Drive around a wind power facility, and it's noisy; plus birds are killed when they collide with the turbines.

Yay. Birds are killed.
Oh wait: In the US about 0.02% as much as are killed by cats alone. So if the US were to up it's wind power potential to a crazy 100% supply for its electricity needs (currently 3-4%) all wind turbines combined would kill still LESS than 1% as many birds as cats do. And that's not even counting that off shore kills far fewer birds. (and are also no noise problem to people)

There are some new reactor designs that can prevent the inner core from melting and causing large-scale damage, but human failure remains a relevant issue.

So: The engineering part is safer. But the real risk factors can't be dealt with. Problem?
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
@AstroNut One reason nuclear is so expensive is that anti-nuke people delay construction, thus extending payback time for loans and increasing the amount paid in interest.
Indeed that human instinct for survival is a bitch.
@CapitalismFails The problem is there is no free market in nuclear power.
Why are you ignoring Itan and North Korea? Are you becoming a liberal?
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2013
You are aware that the stuff has been expensive even in times where people weren't protesting it?


You are aware it's made more expensive when people do protest it?

Oh wait: In the US about 0.02% as much as are killed by cats alone.


Agreed, this is a huge a red herring. Almost as big as hugely inflated concerns over the safety of nuclear plants in general. Especially generation III reactors....

Frustrating isn't it?

So: The engineering part is safer. But the real risk factors can't be dealt with. Problem?


Not at all...unless you're suggesting we stop flying planes, driving cars, using cell phones, or any other activity or thing that GREATLY benefits human civilization overall but has risks. Were you suggesting that?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
You are aware it's made more expensive when people do protest it?

Sure. But you know what: People are also protesting wind power. NIMBYism is not exclusive to nuclear.

Not at all...unless you're suggesting we stop flying planes, driving cars, using cell phones, or any other activity or thing that GREATLY benefits human civilization overall but has risks

There are risks and then there are RISKS. A plane crashing? A few dead. Let it crash in downtown New York: A few thousand dead. A year later: all is back to normal.

A reactor cracks open due to earthquake (even a type III reactor) and no one dies. But you have contaminated a huge area. Next year: still contaminated. Next decade: still contaminated. Next century: still contaminated. Next millennium: still contaminated.

Now you tell me which type of risk is economically more sensible?

Some risks are worth taking, becaue the problems - if something goes wrong - are contained and can be cleaned up. Some aren't.

Eikka
3.1 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
So: The engineering part is safer. But the real risk factors can't be dealt with. Problem?


How about engineering them so that the actual problem - human error - will have neglible or manageable outcomes?

Unfortunately that seems to be the sticking point with nuclear power, because it doesn't matter how safe you make it, the people who oppose it are completely hysterical about the consequences. Only a zero probability of fault will do because everything else is apparently as bad as Chernobyl, which itself was apparently the end of the world.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2013
@Eikka the people who oppose it are completely hysterical about the consequences. Only a zero probability of fault will do because everything else is apparently as bad as Chernobyl, which itself was apparently the end of the world.
So are you going to stay around for the next 10,000 years repairing Chernobyl until the Elephant Foot of melted uranium can be removed from the sarcophagus? And will you also provide a cancer cure for the residents of Kyiv only 60km downwind for the next 100,000 years?

People like you don't value life, for whatever reason
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
How about engineering them so that the actual problem - human error - will have neglible or manageable outcomes?

Funny, and there's me thinking that all those big controls and computers and regulations all the nuclear powerplants have, since...well...forever were attempts at just doing that.

And I'm not entirely sure how tsunami/earthquake/faulty material (like in the case of the cracked containment vessels found at several plants in the last year) -proof one can make things. It's exactly that people aren't currently trying, is it?
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
forever were attempts at just doing that.


You're talking about devices that were drawn up in the 50's and sometimes even with known risks ignored, like the Chernobyl.

Usually when a new technology arrives, we apply caution until we get to grips with it and learn how to operate it safely. With nuclear power, the more we learn about how to operate it safely the more people like you demand we abandon it entirely.

What you're missing from the story is that the reactors we have running now are just one possible type of nuclear reactors, which basically derive from the first kind ever built that were designed for a completely different purpose of making nuclear bombs and run submarines. They are not inherently safe because safety was an afterthought.

We can do better.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
And will you also provide a cancer cure for the residents of Kyiv only 60km downwind for the next 100,000 years?


This is exactly the kind of hysteria I'm talking about. You're talking about as if that was actually necessary and happening for real.

Let me ask you something. Do you know Bhopal? 1986, same year as Chernobyl - chemical plant explosion, left the place poisoned and the people suffering ill health and dying for generations to come - for real. Do you oppose the chemicals industry with the same intensity as you do nuclear power? After all, any of the millions of processing plants around the world could have accidents just like that because they're supectible to the same human errors as nuclear power. Nothing is 100% safe.

Do we hear about Bhopal - no. Do we hear about Chernobyl - yes.

The hypocricy is strong.
ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
Want zero carbon emission and safety? Go cold fusion. In addition, the economical uranium reserves aren't inexhaustible and the switching to thorium breeder reactors will decrease the safety of nuclear energetics even more.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
We should realize one thing: the contemporary word is "fossilized" heavily. The civil nuclear power currently supplies just 13.5% (one eight) of global electricity needs. And the electricity consumption represents just one fifth of total energy consumption worldwide. If the nuclear energy should substitute all that fossil fuel energy, its production should rise by factor 40! This is not even funny. The existing uranium reserves would be depleted in just fifteen years, not to say about need of huge investments into electric infrastructure (lithium, copper wires and rare earth metal investments into electromobility, batteries, etc.). The gasoline is concentrated source of energy and it requires only vessel for its transportation. Just the price and low ecology of raw materials consumption is the main limiting factor of wider exploitation of nuclear energy.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (21) Feb 14, 2013
Timely reminders to those who make simplistic arguments FOR nuclear power plants.

Planes? There are no alternatives for taking that risk. But there are alternatives to taking risk of nuclear power.

Terrorism? Not only will more plants make for more targets for future terrorists with more powerful means at their disposal, but proliferation of nuclear plants increases manyfold probability/availability of material for terrorist nuclear-explosive and/or conventional-explosive-Dispersal 'dirty' bombs.

Waste and future costs/risks across generations/political systems 1,000's of years hence? No solution for system instabilities, criminal sales/smuggling, waste containment etc etc is in the offing except 'optimistic' self-serving rationalizations such as 'we can handle it' etc.

Trust no-one, especially a SALESMAN for the industry. There are INTELLIGENT and LESS COSTLY and more practical/local alternatives out there right now. The shills and the crooks deny it. So what? Who needs them? :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2013
FYI all genuine PhysOrg members/readers. The username "lite" is a botnet operator/product testing his cross-forums programs for infiltrating and then hacking/spamming/fishing using the members details. Beware the malware the bot is still trying to install here and at other forums/sites. Do not reveal anything personal AT ALL on your 'profile' or in your posts (even if the bot's 'sockpuppet' usernames 'dare you' to reveal such by pretending to be 'only confirming your credentials/competency etc etc".

Your best course of action is to TOTALLY IGNORE "lite" activities in the profile and other areas....and DON'T click on any 'links' from his 'sockpuppet' agent provocateur 'usernames'! Don't say you haven't been warned! :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (20) Feb 14, 2013
Oh wait: In the US aboutOh wait: In the US about 0.02% as much as are killed by cats alone 0.02% as much as are killed by cats alone
When responding to this bird nonsense you should cite the following study:

"This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems.

"The study estimates that WIND FARMS and NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while FOSSIL-FUELED POWER STATIONS are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."

-Fossil fuel kills far more birds than the other options.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 14, 2013
FYI all genuine PhysOrg members/readers. The username "lite" is a botnet operator/product testing his cross-forums programs for infiltrating and then hacking/spamming/fishing using the members details. Beware the malware the bot is still trying to install here and at other forums/sites.
?? Lite has been around for months and months. If he represented any such activity he would have been banned long ago.
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2013
A jerk.
The third derivative of displacement.
Exhibits pathological behavior.
Causes huge problems.
Three times removed from reality.
The guy needs a haircut. See picture.
Physicists will understand.
grondilu
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2013
I whish I could say we should get rid of nuclear power ASAP and switch to solar power, but I'm afraid this guy is actually right. At least nuclear does the job right now. Despite daily announcements from research about improvements in Solar and Wind turbine technology, it's still not ready for massive and worldwide use. Nuclear will have to ensure the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
The username "lite" is a botnet operator/product testing
It's a normal guy, who has no better enjoyment in his life, than to abuse the voting system here. He downvotes all comments here manually and he spends huge amount of time with it. I'm sure, most of PO readers don't give a sh*t about him anyway in the same way, like the Google indexing engine...;-)
rwinners
3.4 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
I whish I could say we should get rid of nuclear power ASAP and switch to solar power, but I'm afraid this guy is actually right. At least nuclear does the job right now. Despite daily announcements from research about improvements in Solar and Wind turbine technology, it's still not ready for massive and worldwide use. Nuclear will have to ensure the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.


Outside of renewables, nuclear does, by far, the best job of protecting the world ecology.... right now. I have no idea when, or even if, fusion will ever become a cost efficient reality.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that Japan will still be using most of it's nuclear generating facilities in 2030.
Caliban
3 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
Nah. Economically nor Ecologically superior or necessary. This cheerleader conveniently ignores the lifecycle cost of chemical element extraction and refining(to include associated environmental and human health costs), the actual costs of build/maintain/regulate facilities, and the lifecycle costs of waste(to include associated environmental and human health costs).

Once ALL OF THE COSTS of ANY nuclear power generation regime are accounted for, it becomes immediately apparent that renewables are indeed, cheaper, more eco-friendly, and much more speedily deployed to replace existing and projected supply needs.

The chief allure of Nuclear(aside from weapons productiion) is, was, and always will be its porkbarrel status, as its very exixtence requires a massive outlay of support --conveniently provided by private industry contractors at the public's expense.

These very same corporate interests are responsible for the continued cheerleading.

Nuclear = huge profits.

ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2013
Actually the nuclear plants suffer with the exactly the opposite problem like the solar or wind plants. Their power cannot be regulated easily. The ecology of solar, wind plants and biofuels is disputable too, especially when considering their actual capacity and reliability, which must be balanced with increased load of grid and fossil fuel plants.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
"The study estimates that WIND FARMS and NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while FOSSIL-FUELED POWER STATIONS are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
Reading that I thought you meant people are jumping off windmills and roofs and cooling towers like lemmings. Well for suicide diving they will have big competition from the Golden Gate Bridge and the Moscow TV Tower
rwinners
3 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2013
Nah. Economically nor Ecologically superior or necessary. This cheerleader conveniently ignores the lifecycle cost of .......................s will be its porkbarrel status, as its very exixtence requires a massive outlay of support --conveniently provided by private industry contractors at the public's expense.

These very same corporate interests are responsible for the continued cheerleading.

Nuclear = huge profits.



Nah. You do not consider the 'quality' of the energy produced. Coal is lowest followed by oil/products and natural gas. All other forms of energy production are far far cleaner.
Estevan57
3.2 / 5 (27) Feb 14, 2013
If a person wants to know who lite is, just look at Ottos' and lites' profile pages. The same hate filled rant with the same names, and notice how Otto jumps in to defend lite.

If you follow Otto you will see lite downvote those he disagrees with. Very consistantly and persistently.

Take my posts for example. I post something to annoy Otto and the first vote is always lite, coincidence? Not at all.

It makes me wonder how many people would follow this site if the voting were turned off. Probably many more.

Otto, you are well aware that the mods are completely overwhelmed on this site. Look at what is allowed: everything from pussytard to fuck your mother Otto. Even the poster of gay porn has an active account here, and I have reported that particular post at least 50 times.

lite is a vote vermin.
szore88
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2013
Hyper educated morons. Sorry, but true.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 15, 2013
to fuck your mother Otto
Fuck my mother, estevan?? Really?
Otto, you are well aware that the mods are completely overwhelmed on this site.
And obviously anyone who consistently posts stuff like this should be banned. Anyone else agree?
lite is a vote vermin
And as anyone can see from the 'nigg' and estevan votes on my activity page, so are you. It's like some sort of DISEASE you have esai.
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (25) Feb 15, 2013
Yes, really.
A perfect example of what is not found by the mods, don't you agree? Certainly on a par with Pussytard, which you have actually spent 4 posts defending on the grounds that someone else said it first.

The fact that your behaviour causes people to vote this way or that is your problem.

The "nigg" votes are not mine, but tough for you anyway.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2013
Yes, really.
A perfect example of what is not found by the mods, don't you agree? Certainly on a par with Pussytard, which you have actually spent 4 posts defending on the grounds that someone else said it first.

The fact that your behaviour causes people to vote this way or that is your problem.

The "nigg" votes are not mine, but tough for you anyway.
-E57

Physorg admin should get rid of the voting system altogether, and that would eliminate all of Blotto's sock puppets who don't submit a comment and exist only to downvote people who Blotto wishes to antagonize. Such is the defective mindset of Theghostofotto1923, for without his sock puppets, he would not be able to downvote anyone without revealing his own primary name in the Activity page. Blotto uses the username ' lite ' as the punisher for certain infractions, just as he uses (used?) the name FrankHerbert (with and without the numbers) to punish those commentators that Blotto hates.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2013
(contd)
The first one who used the term, ' pussytard ' was FrankHerbert aka Theghostofotto1923. Blotto apparently thought to blame VendicarD (now VendicarE) for the genesis of the pussytard insult, because of VD's insidious use of the ' tard ' moniker. But, after reading all of VD's posts regarding Pussycat-Eyes, I found that VD never once called her ' pussytard ' even though the two disagreed politically. VD always called her ' Pussycat ' and appeared to treat her with some respect.
By the way that Pussycat_Eyes "talked", I could tell that she is female, and I believe that VD also realized that too.

It was also apparent that Theghostofotto1923 has a hatred for the female gender, which is why he uses the term ' pussytard '. Blotto uses it on me because, in his sick mind, he believes that I took on the role of Pussycat_Eyes for some unfathomable reason...something which Blotto cannot prove no matter how many times I have requested that proof. He is a crazy person who made Physorg his.
rwinners
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2013


Physorg admin should get rid of the voting system altogether, and that would eliminate all of Blotto's sock puppets who don't submit a comment and exist only to downvote people who Blotto wishes to antagonize. Such is the defective mindset of Theghostofotto1923, for without his sock puppets, he would not be able to downvote anyone without revealing his own primary name in the Activity page. Blotto uses the username ' lite ' as the punisher for certain infractions, just as he uses (used?) the name FrankHerbert (with and without the numbers) to punish those commentators that Blotto hates.

Geez, the egos here! Personally, I don't care about 'ratings' nor do I read a lot of comments to pages unless I have commented on them.
Chill!!!
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2013
My ego has nothing to do with my being followed around from thread to thread by Theghostofotto1923 and its sock puppets, something which he/she/it is guilty of having done to Pussycat_Eyes. She doesn't comment with that name anymore after having been harassed and stalked by Blotto each time she signed on to Physorg to comment on stuff she found interesting. Estevan57 is NOT stalking Blotto. It is coincidence that they happen to be in the same thread at the same time, just as Zephir and antialias is often in the same thread with Blotto. No one can accuse antialias of stalking, that's for certain.
But, Blotto shows up where I have commented to accuse me of 1) pussytard, 2) have no right to comment in Physorg, 3) making comments without researching Wiki first, and Blotto says that I'm a fake farmer, a fake nurse, fake engineer, fake UFOlogist, fake Russian...all because Blotto needs a victim to perform bully tactics on.
I am German...know nothing about nursing or farming...never said I do
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2013
Here is another example of my being stalked by Theghostofotto1923.

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

One must wonder what Caliban and Blotto are doing in a thread about the longest cat in the world having died, when both have expressed a strong dislike of cats.

In re: to nuclear power plants, there is a choice...either nuclear energy, or fossil fuels to heat our homes in Winter and cool in Summer; provide hot water and electricity for kitchen ranges, and other appliances. Once solar and wind energy is productive enough to provide us all these things, that's when our energy needs will be met more efficiently and electric production is great enough that we can rely solely on solar and wind. But until that day comes, we still have to make do with what we've got. I am certain that walking around with a face mask to keep out pollutants isn't too bad. If the Chinese can do it, so can I...IF it ever comes to that.
praos
1.8 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2013
50y of nuclear power generation, facts:
Radiation fatalities in accidents in the West = 0
Radiation fatalities in accidents in exclusivelly civil plants in the world = 0
(Chernobyl was a plutionium producing facility; that was its undoing.)
Last serious accident in regular operation -- 1976
(not even reactor lining was breached, harmless emissions)
The rest is hysteria. Have your heads, not your reactors inspected.
Steven_Anderson
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2013
The solution for the problems with conventional reactors is in the use of LFTR Nuclear Reactors. I have done an analysis of the cost to convert all USA coal fire plants to LFTR Nuclear Reactors. We could do this with a Manhattan style project and the cost would be a lot less than a billion needed to create a new nuclear plant using conventional methods and conventional containers. They cost a lot less to build from scratch and even less to convert existing coal plants. Coal represents 42% of our energy supply and at least 30% of our CO2 emissions. Please read and sign the petition before it's too late http://rawcell.com
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2013
Here is another example of my being stalked by Theghostofotto1923
No that is an example of you posting completely irrelevant nonsense once again. Why do you not expect people to make fun of it?

And why do you not expect people who have had to tolerate it from you under various sickpuppets for months and months now, responding with increasing anger and frustration?

Recently you actually asked someone to look something up for you on the internet about wind turbines. Why did you not expect someone to express just how outrageously LAZY this is?

No engineer would make such a request. They would want to read up on the subject THEMSELVES rather than having others explain it to them. This is one of many proof-positive examples that you are NO engineer.

You post crap and you get treated like crap. This is only fair yes? And you are the worst serial crap-poster I have ever seen.

Its like an antique tricycle collector insisting upon posting in a mountain biking forum.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2013
Pussycat_Eyes. She doesn't comment with that name anymore
No, if she (you) posted the exact same sort of lazy, lying, flooding bullshit under a different sickpuppet (which you do) she would again be recognized (which you have been). You understand?

ITS THE CRAP YOU POST THAT PISSES PEOPLE OFF. Its the way you insult the people here by POSTING CRAP, which elicits the expected response. Time and again. From MOST of the regulars here. This will not stop. Guaranteed.
Estevan57 is NOT stalking Blotto.
But your buddy esai SAYS he is stalking otto. Per my profile page. If you knew how to use google you could confirm the source.
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (23) Feb 17, 2013
Using google to find my previous posts?
Perhaps vote on them like Otto/lite/Masturbater/Antiphilo/diaperdogdick/dumdogslickthemselves/arf-arf-arf-arf/UncleMeat/ FrankHerButt/RitchieGay01/Socks_is_Pirouette/Estevan56/ FrankHerberts 1 thru 5, and more?

Otto, are stalking me? As documented in my profile page?
Looks like it. For shame, be a man for once.

UncleMeat, FrankHerButt, RitchieGay01,
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2013
Using google to find my previous posts?
Perhaps vote on them like Otto/lite/Masturbater/Antiphilo/diaperdogdick/dumdogslickthemselves/arf-arf-arf-arf/
Yah and if you like scummy trolls you can give him 5/5s like he does himself. Hey how's that going esai? Getting anywhere?
Otto, are stalking me? As documented in my profile page?
Looks like it. For shame, be a man for once.
'Be a man for once...I own you!' says the mite who thinks that stalking is manly. Esai anyone can go to my activity and witness your sickness for themselves. And it's got nothing to do with manhood. Anklebiters are not men.
UncleMeat, FrankHerButt, RitchieGay01 UncleMeat/ FrankHerButt/RitchieGay01/Socks_is_Pirouette/Estevan56/ FrankHerberts 1 thru 5, and more?
Sorry these aren't me. More your scummy style, per my profile page, don't you think?
dav_daddy
1.4 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2013
I'm used to people in general having an irrational fear of nuclear power but I am both shocked and somewhat disheartened to see this same irrational fear so prevalent here. Something about nuclear radiation must trigger some fear instinct that we still carry around from our evolutionary past. The same principal as what is believed to be the cause of racism, gambling, and a few other traits served us some purpose on our path from apes to humans. These traits have far out lived and usefulness and are now real burdens for humanity as a whole.

There have been 3 major incidents involving nuclear power plants since we started using nuclear for energy.

3 mile island=0 dead
Chernobyl= < 50 dead
Japan=0 dead

There have been other health issues long term health issues with Chernobyl and the contamination of areas in Japan and Russia are very real issues. But come on people there are no free lunches in life. Nuclear is the best option we have!
antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
There have been 3 major incidents involving nuclear power plants


I think you missed a few
http://www.guardi...ist-rank

And in a few of those cases we got VERY lucky (e.g. Lucens, where the cave could be sealed off - and will have to remain sealed off basically forever)

Nuclear is the best option we have

Nuclear is an option where there is no environment (e.g. off world - space, the Moon, Mars, etc. )
On this planet nuclear isn't an option for widespread deployment because we only have a limited amount of space to go around.

So: "Want zero carbon emissions? Go nuclear" ...is technically correct. But just about as useful a statement as "Want a fire-proof house? Build it on the bottom of the ocean"
FastEddy
1 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
... Not all nuclear reactors are alike. Some of them were designed for upgrades and extended maintenance - others weren't. There are a number of nuclear powerplants in the world that are well past what anyone considered when they were built....


There are also some very interesting newer designs: the German Pebble Bed Reactor(s) seem to be quite clean, very reliable, "melt down" proof ... except that the anti-nuke, enviro-fascists won't let any new nuke plants of any kind be built in Germany.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
... Not all nuclear reactors are alike. Some of them were designed for upgrades and extended maintenance - others weren't. There are a number of nuclear powerplants in the world that are well past what anyone considered when they were built....


There are also some very interesting newer designs: the German Pebble Bed Reactor(s) seem to be quite clean, very reliable, "melt down" proof ... except that the anti-nuke, enviro-fascists won't let any new nuke plants of any kind be built in Germany.
No, germany had some extreme problems with these
http://en.wikiped...ctor#AVR

-But china seems to be building them.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
The solution for the problems with conventional reactors is in the use of LFTR Nuclear Reactors. I have done an analysis of the cost to convert all USA coal fire plants to LFTR Nuclear Reactors. We could do this with a Manhattan style project and the cost would be a lot less than ...


What do you mean by "we", Chemo (sabi)?

The power companies are all quite capable of building new nuke (or other) power plants without an help from g'ment. They charge for the precious juice, plenty, and can factor in the cost SAVINGS in your power bills ... and with a profit left over.

This is a good thing, 'cause those profits will pay taxes, too.

Picking a "standard" nuke power plant design is not easy, as g'ment inspectors with 1950's education will still try to mess with it ... in this country at least.

Pity the poor Commie Chinese? The Chinese private sector and public sector power companies have more than 120 brand new nuke power plants on order and forecasts for another 50 ! ... ! ... !
FastEddy
1 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
... Not all nuclear reactors are alike. ...

There are also some very interesting newer designs: the German Pebble Bed Reactor(s) seem to be quite clean, very reliable, "melt down" proof ... except that the anti-nuke, enviro-fascists won't let any new nuke plants of any kind be built in Germany.

No, germany had some extreme problems with these http://en.wikiped...ctor#AVR ...


That AVR design from the 1980's may have problems, more recent designs, not so much. (Note the Chinese have 120 nuke power plants on order, not sure how many will be "pebble bed", but ...)

BTW: Bechtel has a "p-bed" nuke power plant design that will fit on a river barge bottom.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
For all the "nukes'r'safe" crowd:

http://phys.org/n...ear.html This was published just yesterday on PHYSOrg. Not a single comment.

http://phys.org/n...ite.html
An article from last year. A single comment.

http://phys.org/n...ght.html From 2010. Not a single comment.

The environmental health and safety costs of the currently operating or decommissioned nuke capacity in the US is prohibitively high and ongoing, with no end in sight.

And we're only talking containment/decontamination operations here.

This latest Hanford leak highlights only a few aspects of the problem, but, chief among them is the poisoning of groundwater, which is --one supects purposefully-- unstudied and unreported upon -at least officially.

A quick websearch for "Downwinders" will reveal plenty of information regarding the risks of living downwind or stream from nukes. cont
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
cont

The same spikes in the incidence of various types of cancer and related health issues exist in proximity to several US nuke sites.

All the drumbeating in the world for Thorium and fast-breeder, et al, doesn't change the legacy of nuclear toxicity, or lessen the likelihood of further disasters with the aging, decaying present fleet of active reactors, each successive generation of which has revealed its own individual risks and downside, after each new design has been touted as the answer to all nuke safety concerns.

The plain fact of the matter is that NO nuclear capacity can be demonstrated to be safe or free from PERMANENT waste-storage requirements on a time scale that will probably outlast our species.

ANY claims to the contrary fly in the face of the facts, and infallibly indicate a lack of understanding of the risks, greedmotive, or both.

The fact that China plans 120 new nuke plants is meaningless in the context of nuke safety.

Look where dams and coal got them.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
The power companies are all quite capable of building new nuke (or other) power plants without an help from g'ment.
No theyre not.

"In 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE) called for combined construction and operating licence (COL) proposals under its Nuclear Power 2010 program on the basis that it would fund up to half the cost of any accepted."

"In an effort that brings together government research laboratories, industry and academe, the Federal government has significantly stepped up R&D spending for future plants"

"Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will fund up to half the cost of a five-year project to design and commercialize small, modular reactors for the United States"

"At Capital Line Energy Financing, we take a proactive and entrepreneurial approach when securing funding for nuclear development and nuclear plant acquisitions."

"2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative.. subsidies of different energy sources...nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
That AVR design from the 1980's may have problems, more recent designs, not so much. (Note the Chinese have 120 nuke power plants on order
-And this does not by any means indicate that they will be 'safe' from any standpoint.
manifespo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
The professor is right about nuclear power- harnessing the nuclear power of our fusionucleareactorSol is the key. The sun aka Sol rains upon hiSearth 100 Petawatts of photonic energy aka total sunlight, which as the byproduct of the solar nuclear fusion powerball in space holding our solar system together, provides more than enough fusionuclear energy to fuel billions more years of eco-geo-$ociobiology. Dedicated this antimessage to likeminded twits also bereft of brevity yet Soul blessed & sunkissed souls to brave eighty years without.wits, with which twone normally outwits web.switches...:-)
megmaltese
1.9 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2013
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Watch how much time you need BEFORE having a KW of energy.

And large, centralized structures like these are always subject to corruption and injustified cost growth.

And "how do you deal with human failures?" Yeah, exactly.

And about the costs, why he didn't mention the dismission costs?
The waste costs?
The health costs? There ARE health costs, go ask the people living near to nuclear centrals how well they feel!

On top of this there are the risks, which we all well know.
Don't think: the one LARGE incidents we know are the only the tip of the iceberg.
Many other don't even reach media and are patched luckily.

Somebody calculated that if all Earth went nuclear and dismissed all the carbon and other energy sources, there would be an incident every year at least. A NUCLEAR incident.

Why not go solar, immediate energy, not centralized, you have immediately. Just research for better batteries, that's all.
megmaltese
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
All in all, I think this guy does not know the whole matter or is not able to put all the variables together in a large view.

Or, more easily, he is corrupted.

Oh and one thing I was forgetting: the Sun is raining a huge amount of energy every day on Earth, we just need to catch it and use it for our purposes.
On another side, ANY energy we extract from ground is an ADDITION to the total energy burning on the surface on Earth, AND WARMING IT.
So, reusing solar energy is NOT ADDING any heat to Earth.
Producing nuclear energy IS ADDING heat to Earth.

The only real future for humanity lies in solar energy and a growth in knowledge to store it in better batteries.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2013
The solar energy is very diluted and unreliable source of energy, it's exploitation consumes soil not to say about precious material resources (indium, precious metals, copper for wires, materials for batteries). The only economically feasible areas (Sahara) are occupied with unstable regimes. The solar energy appears recoverable only when we neglect many externalities (the need of backup, storage, balance and redistribution via grid). What we need is the small, compact, transportable and reliable source of concentrated energy for public transportation - and after then the solar energy is losing most of its advantages. It's true, that the heat produced with solar radiation exceeds the needs of human society in two orders of magnitude - but from the same reason the production of heat with civilization is negligible in thermal balance of Earth.

What I'm saying is, when the cold fusion or magnetic motors will prove its usability, nobody of you will give a shit about some solar plants.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2013
BTW My dream is the restoration of world and biosphere into its virgin state, so I don't want to have Nature covered with neverending forests of wind or solar plants. We simply know about much better ways already. Even the energy sources should be as unobtrusive as possible. I do consider the wind and solar plants as just an intermediate epoch before final adoption of cold fusion, which actually delays its implementation. So I'm not very happy from so-called "green" environmentalism, which just converted the draining of fossil fuel resources into draining of material ones (metals ores, rain forests) and which just accelerated the devastation of biosphere in its very consequences. Currently the TCO of technology (i.e. the total cost of ownership) is the most reliable indicator of its actual ecological friendliness.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2013
Caliban:

All those problems are caused by nuclear hysteria - the same that makes people chain themselves to railway tracks in Germany when they're actually trying to do something about the issue. Even the articles you linked say so: the roadblocks to disposal of nuclear waste must be cleared or else it will just keep sitting around in unsecured pools and leaking all over the place.

It's a political problem, not a technological problem. People won't let people fix it.

A reactor cracks open due to earthquake (even a type III reactor) and no one dies. But you have contaminated a huge area. Next year: still contaminated. Next decade: still contaminated. Next century: still contaminated. Next millennium: still contaminated.


Technically, you could clean up the place just as you could clean up Bhopal, but nobody's interested.

You can design reactors that minimize contamination in an accident, short of getting a meteor strike right on the money.
megmaltese
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2013
To the one who rated my posts 1 without even explanating: I think you are a stupid person.
megmaltese
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2013
A reactor cracks open due to earthquake (even a type III reactor) and no one dies. But you have contaminated a huge area. Next year: still contaminated. Next decade: still contaminated. Next century: still contaminated. Next millennium: still contaminated.


Technically, you could clean up the place just as you could clean up Bhopal, but nobody's interested.

You can design reactors that minimize contamination in an accident, short of getting a meteor strike right on the money.


Technically, you can do anything (almost).
But is it worth it?
Worth the risk?
Worth the money?
Why searching for troubles when there are safe alternatives?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2013
To the one who rated my posts 1 without even explanating: I think you are a stupid person.
I 1/5d you for this:
The health costs? There ARE health costs, go ask the people living near to nuclear centrals how well they feel!
-which is nonsense.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2013
To the one who rated my posts 1 without even explanating: I think you are a stupid person.
-megmaltese

You are correct. Theghostofotto1923 and all its sock puppets IS a stupid person. Pay no attention to it since it suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder, Pareidolia, as well as having delusions of grandeur.
The ratings are of no major importance, I assure you.

Rather than Concentrated Photovoltaics as a source of energy from the Sun, I prefer Concentrated Solar Power using mirrors that channel and concentrates the Sun's rays to a receiver which is built onto the mirror. Specifically, out of the 3 CSP systems, (trough, Power Tower, and Dish Engine) I prefer the Dish Engine System.
This link explains CSP:

http://solareis.a...ndex.cfm

www.nrel.gov/docs...8751.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

We need CSP from coast to coast in every state to achieve electrical independence...but with better battery technology for sundown.


megmaltese
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
To the one who rated my posts 1 without even explanating: I think you are a stupid person.
I 1/5d you for this:
The health costs? There ARE health costs, go ask the people living near to nuclear centrals how well they feel!
-which is nonsense.


Have you EVER read some report about people living near nuclear centrals? Reports from Germany and Czech Republic, in example?

Or you just talk about something you WANT to believe, i.e. that "nuclear is safe, and so everything anybody can say or write that does not support this is wrong".
megmaltese
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
Rather than Concentrated Photovoltaics as a source of energy


There is a number of ways in which the Sun's energy can be harnessed.
What is important is to go that direction with research and stop investing money on stuff that is mostly dear to big parties and lobbies... just for, as usual, money.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2013
People won't let people fix it. - E

The perfect fix is the cure for polio.
Now you don't want polio to go extinct - just in case.

The list of perfect fixes are impressive.
Chernobyl
Fukushima
.
.
.
.
.
Perfect fixes pay for themselves many times over.

Someone will have something to say about the fixes chosen.
You can't argue with perfect fixes.
scubafox
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2013
The problem is there is no free market in nuclear power. ... no bank loan out money to build a nuclear plant because the liability would be too great. That's why they are financed by government loan guarantees. If the government had chosen to stay out of the nuclear industry and had just stayed inside the realm of the military, we might be running on LFTRs right now.

Exactly! Without the government interference in the "free market" through the Price-Anderson Act that relieved the nuclear power industry of liability there would never have been nuclear power at all. The potential damages would be too high. The public now assumes the risk. That's the main reason this idea is exactly wrong.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.