Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "Like ants using Raid"

Here's an interesting perspective by an anti-nuke writer.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/
Excerpt below.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 22nd March 2011

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at [bleep], I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting(1). Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com(2). It shows that the average total dose from the Three-Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I�m not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn�t work.

Frankly, I think he makes excellent points - including not build a few big nuclear plants but more smaller ones.

Anyway a timely and interesting article

I agree, interesting.

I'll further the argument by saying what the pro- side will be saying soon enough anyway (assuming things don't get REALLY bad): "this was a worst-case scenario, and it's still not that bad..."

Oh come on! you actually believe that?

How many times have I said it before, but yep, 20 miles from a nuke, no problem. At least I know as long as its running, and no catastrophies I'm good.

OTOH, I've had this coal plant here since the 70s, we get dust off the coal trains coming through town every day. We get acid rain from the plant and all its pollution even though its been cleaned up and new scrubbers just recently. Since the mid 70s, we've had one of the highest if not highest county rate of cancer in the state.

Coal is totally clear to me that it damages. Nuke, only if there is a problem.

Its much like a plane crash vs a car crash. More folks die in cars but its 1-2-4 at a time, not hundreds.... the planes get coverage, the cars not so much hype by the media but in reality the cars are more dangerous.

I'd say the same about coal plants, I bet you could trace way many many many more deaths to coal plants and all that it takes to run them, than you cold to a few nuke plant disasters.

OR.. will it be like the vast barren waste lands of the Gulf of Mexico after the horrible oil well blowout that would end life for many years to come.... and I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying, until we know... we know nothing. Ask Schultz.

Jeff, points well taken BUT here's the crucial (IMHO) difference.

I'm no fan of coal plants, having seen what the 4-corners area ones did to air quality in NM.

But a coal plant isn't going to take everything you have.

Ask the Japanese living near the nuke plant if they'd rather it'd been a coal-fired plant. Ask the former residents of Chernobyl...

Even the utility that was trying to put in a nuclear plant near here in the early 70's (I was badly wrong on the date earlier- sorry! ) said this just a few years later:

In hindsight, even Keith Parks, who took over as EWEB general manager three years later, had grudging respect for the Future Power Committee.

�They did a great favor for this community,� he told Pope. �They saved its butt.�


------------

In light of Japan�s earthquake, tsunami and subsequent teetering on nuclear disaster, imagine driving north on Highway 101 just beyond the Heceta Head Lighthouse.

You wind inland, dip down the long, straight stretch toward Big Creek and, suddenly, there it is: a nuclear power plant gouged into the beach.

A nightmare?

Perhaps, but one that, nearly 41 years ago, came perilously close to becoming a reality.

In 1970, Eugene came within less than a thousand votes of essentially green-lighting the Eugene Water & Electric Board�s desire to build a $234 million nuclear power plant � and Big Creek was among a handful of preferred locations.

�Unless you�re an old-timer and have lived in Lane County a long time, people don�t know about it at all,� says Daniel Pope, a University of Oregon history professor who�s written about the issue.

The fact is, he says, if a grass-roots group from Eugene had not led a fight to place a local moratorium on building such a plant, it may well have happened.

�It was an incredible fight to overcome EWEB�s plans,� says Jane Novick, then a 46-year-old activist who helped spearhead such efforts and now, at 86, is a resident of the Willamette Oaks apartments. �Many people joined the movement. And it took all of our energy.�

Four decades removed, it seems inconceivable that such a plant, particularly at such a scenic � and seemingly dangerous � location, would have even been considered.

�With the Cascadia fault, we have records of 41 earthquakes in the last 10,000 years with an average of 240 years apart,� Yumei Wang, the geohazards team leader at the state Department of Geology, told The Associated Press. �Our last one was 311 years ago, so we are overdue.�

But remember, the environ mental movement back then was in diapers (cloth, of course). And, with signs that the era of abundant energy was ending, Northwest�s energy czars were giddy about going nuclear.

Armed with predictions that U.S. power needs were going to double every decade � it didn�t happen � the Washington Public Power Supply System was launching a five-plant nuclear system.

EWEB wanted a piece of the nuclear pie, too.

�Many had come to see it as the best source of safe, cheap electricity,� Pope wrote in a 1990 piece for Pacific Historical Review. �Some were predicting that nuclear reactors would generate half of the nation�s electric power by the end of the century.�

Bonneville Power Administration officials envisioned 20 nuclear plants in the Northwest by 1990.

Now, we have just one � at Hanford, the other four WPPSS plants having been quashed amid the project�s financial meltdown. Meanwhile, the country�s 104 nuclear reactors now produce only about one-fifth of our electrical power.

But attitudes were different back then. In November 1968, when EWEB placed a $225 million bond measure on the ballot to fund construction of a nuclear power plant, it passed by a whopping 79 percent to 21 percent.

Once voters OK�d the measure, however, some started second-guessing the decision. After Novick�s League of Women Voters book group read a just-out expos� called �The Careless Atom� by Sheldon Novick (no relation to Jane), she started organizing opposition.

Others jumped on board, forming the Eugene Future Power Committee.

Meanwhile, EWEB identified about a dozen sites it was considering, from Oakridge to Florence, whose city officials welcomed the economic boost that the proposed plant would provide.

On the other hand, farmers voiced concerns about reactors raising river water temperatures that would hurt irrigation. The state got involved. EWEB brought in experts from nuclear plants to defend the decision. The Register-Guard, which favored the bond measure, hired an outside investigative reporter to do what turned into a 14-part series that, in Pope�s view, didn�t advocate a position but showed �evident sympathy� for those questioning EWEB�s decision.

The Future Power Committee decided its stance would not be anti-nuclear-power, but pro-�let�s-study-this-more.� After going door to door to get the required number of signatures, it placed an initiative on the May 1970 ballot putting a four-year moratorium on EWEB building a nuclear plant.

By the time Eugene voters went to the ballot box � no mail-in voting back then � EWEB had narrowed its choices to six sites: Big Creek, about midway between Florence and Yachats; the south bank of the Siuslaw River, about two miles upstream from the Highway 101 Bridge; a second Siuslaw site nearby; a third Siuslaw site about nine miles up river; Poodle Creek near Noti; and High Prairie, north of Oakridge.

Big Creek was considered a front-runner because the engineer leading EWEB�s site selection study preferred an �ocean water� location. Water would be drawn from the ocean to cool the plant generators, then returned after it became warmed.

But the site became a moot point. Voters approved the measure to halt the project, though by a mere 851 votes � 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent.

Still, the turn-down essentially killed EWEB�s construction plans.

In hindsight, even Keith Parks, who took over as EWEB general manager three years later, had grudging respect for the Future Power Committee.

�They did a great favor for this community,� he told Pope. �They saved its butt.�

Kind of going along what roast just said...

Electricity is "toxic" to us as well. It's caused more fires, electrocutions, and general death than all nuclear disasters combined.

I don't think it's a scourge that must be stopped though.

Most of the people I work with wouldn't like to hear this, as I work for the largest underground coal company in the United States, who is also the largest natural gas producer in the Appalachian Basin.

Without nuclear power, there is no way that we will be able to sustain our way of life in the future. The coal and natural gas will eventually run out, and I am not sure if renewable energy sources will be able to ever pick up all the slack.

Right now about 75% of our energy needs are met by coal (~50%) and natural gas (25%). Nuclear energy definitely has its place in this country, as do various other sources of energy.

The Navy has been using nuclear power since 1955 and they haven't had a nuclear reactor failure or accident yet.

Not too concerned with what happens 500 yrs from now.

yeah, and the trout fishing is spectacular this spring....only problem is the wind. not the oil.

the disaster of all time wasn't all that when it was all over....except for the economic damage the unneeded fishing and drilling bans have imposed.

A coal plant can't take everything you have? I think you missed part of my point. When you die, of cancer related to the emissions, even if it didn't take your house and land, its of no concern to you at that point.

Granted none of the rest of the family can use it in theory. I'll give ya that side of it.

But all in all, I'd rather gamble all of it, than part of it.

As pointed out, the history of Navy Nukes has something going for it.

And lets see now, how many did we loose in our only "disaster" so far? Divided by how many years of nuke power so far? Seems to me vs Coal fired plants, the Nuke has a safter track record HERE at least.

And I'm not overly complaining about this coal plant, other than the fact I have to put up with its dangers to fuel not only my energy needs but those of hundreds of thousands in some big city 60 or so miles away that don't have care in the world, other than to cry the sky is falling every so often.

Now I'll give you this, we need to use the newest technology, and use the history of all the disasters, to develop the newest ones. Just about like planes...... and they'll be more efficient, less waste and safer every evolutionary round we go.

But to hop on a band wagon RE a 40 year old plant..... nah....

Its like our coal plant here, its a given that it has to be somewhere, but in the meantime as the technology came along to make it cleaner emissions wise, you had to sue the entity more or less to get any type of move towards cleaner.

You will if/when all the coal and gas that is easy to extract is gone and your electricity bills skyrocket due to the overhead involved.

The company I work for owns most of the world's largest underground coal mines. The three big ones (Bailey, Enlow Fork, and McElroy) all have about 30 years worth of reserves left and together produce 30+ million tons per year. Their coal is some of the best high-BTU steam coal in the world and is mined from the world's best coal seam (The Pittsburgh 8 seam). When their reserves run out, it's going to leave a pretty big void. Some folks in the industry I've talked to think a lot of our coal reserves are overrated, which does not bode well for us.

The jury is still out on how much natural gas we will be able to get out of the Marcellus Shale and hopefully the Utica Shale. It's going to be a lot, and probably the richest gas shale in the country, but it's still in its relative infancy and faces a lot of environmental obstacles right now. For the sake of my career, I hope it's bigger than ever imagined.

Do you have any idea of how much coal is (just) in the San Juan Basin?

How about Ak., Can.?

BP's coal bed methane production from the North San juan is 600 Million scfs/day. Their South San Juan is 250 Million scfs/day. That's just BP. That's just Co. and N.M. Wanna talk about Wyo.?

I ain't at all too worried about my elctric bill going up cause coal or nat gas is going to deplete anytime soon or later.

I know nothing about the coal there, so I won't begin to speculate. What kind of coal is it? Is most of it mined via surface mines or underground? One thing to remember, while many western states produce exorbitant amounts of coal via surface mines, it's not near the quality of the coal produced in Appalachia.

While you may not be concerned about it running out during your lifetime (which it most assuredly won't), I know our reserves aren't getting any larger.

Hopefully federal regulations do not do severe or irreversible damage to our oil, gas, and coal industries in the future, otherwise it won't matter how large our reserves are.

They will hang the regs if fuel costs get high enough.

Anyone want to take a swing at the dollar amount we've subsidized the nuclear industry? No googling allowed!

Nuclear energy = .gov energy....

Or how much we have and will subsidize solar, wind etc....?

We don't have kids. When we are dead, our family is done. That being said, one thing you'll never hear from me is I don't care about my planet. Its your right not to care, but just doesn't make good sense to me.

Sorry Jeff but the dream of solar panels on every house has some severe environmental issues as well.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5437044_environmental-impact-solar-panels.html