[Fukushima, power stations, nuclear scare]

[Swift]

Along the lines of health consequences of non-nuclear sources of energy...

LINK

Diesel fumes cause cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer agency declared Tuesday, a ruling it says could make exhaust as important a public health threat as secondhand smoke.

The risk of getting cancer from diesel fumes is small, but since so many people breathe in the fumes in some way, the science panel says raising the status of diesel exhaust to carcinogen from "probable carcinogen" was an important shift.

"It's on the same order of magnitude as passive smoking," says Kurt Straif, director of the IARC department that evaluates cancer risks. "This could be another big push for countries to clean up exhaust from diesel engines."

Since so many people are exposed to exhaust, Straif says there could be many cases of lung cancer connected to the contaminant. He says the fumes affected groups including pedestrians on the street, ship passengers and crew, railroad workers, truck drivers, mechanics, miners and people operating heavy machinery.

[HenrikOlsen]

And do remember to count the people dying in mining accidents to the cost of coal.

[NEOWatcher]

As for fertilizers, http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html (more information at link)

First; that says it's fertilizers favored by the tobacco industry. There's no indication as to what levels exist for the food chain.
Second; It's talking about inhaled particles lodging in the lungs. I doubt that ingested particles would have the same effect.

Now; I'm not saying there isn't an issue. I'm just saying that the information is not applicable to the discussion.

[quotation]

Now, it is possible, if one calculated all of this, that Chernobyl or Fukishima would still be more costly. But that isn't an obvious conclusion to me.

The question I ask myself is would I rather be a farmer around Fukushima or a fisherman around Louisiana. I was drinking the other night with a shrimp boat captain from down that way, so for me the answer is obvious. He's still making a good living. The public have accepted technological disasters since the first steamboat blew up, because the opportunity outweiged the risk. Nuclear power? I dunno. I mean even though I'd rather have a nuclear plant than a coal burning plant in my backyard for any number of reasons including aesthetic ones, I'm just not sure they are worth the risk any more. I used to think so. I was a big fan in fact, but that was before we even had a notion of spent fuel as "waste". Back then there wasn't going to be any waste. Rather, "spent" fuel would be used to "re-fuel" the next gen plants. Then came TMI (and perhaps more importantly that stupid China Syndrome movie), Chernobyl, etc., the politics got dodgy, rad "waste" started piling up, plants began aging, while at the same time alternative technologies started maturing, so at this point, while I'm still a big fan for certain applications (brilliant stuff on aircraft carriers and submarines) I certainly wouldn't press for any new plants. I'd incrementally upgrade the existing plants to ensure a graceful end of life, while investing in undersea turbines, photovoltaics and nano-generators. Certainly there will be risks and human costs associated with each of these as well, but probably not to the extent that we're seeing around Fukushima today.

[cjameshuff]

Certainly there will be risks and human costs associated with each of these as well, but probably not to the extent that we're seeing around Fukushima today.

No, they're much greater. You'll have us flattening mountains and wiping out river and forest ecosystems for coal and continued increasing emissions of CO2 and other pollutants with global effect, piling up vast amounts of toxic coal ash slurry in the process. What you describe is exactly the opposite of what we need to do...we need new plants with more advanced reactors that can burn the partially-spent fuel and convert it into short-lived waste, and which can actually displace coal power.

[Swift]

... I certainly wouldn't press for any new plants. I'd incrementally upgrade the existing plants to ensure a graceful end of life, while investing in undersea turbines, photovoltaics and nano-generators. Certainly there will be risks and human costs associated with each of these as well, but probably not to the extent that we're seeing around Fukushima today.

If I was king of the world, I'd actually press for new plants, more than I'd upgrade current plants, but I would construct the new plants based on much newer technologies, which generally have less risk of disasters, and/or have easier to process waste fuel. It bothers me that the fear of nuclear power has stifled upgrades to the technology that could help mitigate many of these problems.

But, I'd also be happy to invest in the other technologies you mention. The global environmental problem that concerns me the most is climate change. I do not think there exists a single technology to move us away from fossil fuels and think the best solution would be a multi-pronged approach, including nuclear.

But I'm also enough a realist to know that this will almost certainly not happen.

[Ara Pacis]

Along the lines of health consequences of non-nuclear sources of energy...

LINK

I wonder if that includes biodiesel, due to some molecular differences. That could take the wind out of the sails for the green-energy camp.

[danscope]

You should know or at least remember that nuclear power plants have way too often been placed in the most incredulous sites, and in the face of extreme protests. Siting a plant on an active geological fault is stupid and doesn't inspire confidence. Fukishima is another example and there are more. If you want support for nuclear power, the industry shold own up to it's ridiculous mistakes and sins of the past and do the right thing in the future.

[Gillianren]

I do not think there exists a single technology to move us away from fossil fuels and think the best solution would be a multi-pronged approach, including nuclear.

Exactly. I don't understand why people expect a single solution; if you think about it, "fossil fuels" aren't technically a single solution to the need for energy. The technologies involved in mining coal are quite different from those needed for drilling for petroleum--to the extent that you use different words!--so why should a replacement for coal and petroleum be a single thing?

[Swift]

I wonder if that includes biodiesel, due to some molecular differences. That could take the wind out of the sails for the green-energy camp.

I don't see any reason that biodiesel would be significantly different than regular diesel for these types of pollutants. I think engine-to-engine differences would account for variations as much as small changes in the diesel fuel.

On the flip side, I really don't see it taking much wind out of the sails (or sales) for bio-diesel. The proponents of either should recognize that the carbon dioxide generated and the pollutants generated by diesel engines are much the same, whether the fuel comes from petroleum or used cooking oil. The small advantages of biodiesel are because of other things (like reusing used cooking oil).

There also may be an advantage for biodiesel from this report. One of the problems with pollution from diesels is that the catalytic converters that are used to decrease pollution from gasoline engines, could not be used for diesels; one of the big reasons is that diesel fuel is generally much higher for sulfur content, and the sulfur poisons the catalysts. That is why in the US, diesel fuel has to meet much tighter sulfur limits, so that catalytic converters can be used.

Though it is a somewhat dependent upon raw material source, biodiesels are almost universally very low in sulfur.

[quotation]

No, they're much greater. You'll have us flattening mountains and wiping out river and forest ecosystems for coal and continued increasing emissions of CO2 and other pollutants with global effect, piling up vast amounts of toxic coal ash slurry in the process. What you describe is exactly the opposite of what we need to do...we need new plants with more advanced reactors that can burn the partially-spent fuel and convert it into short-lived waste, and which can actually displace coal power.

Not sure how on earth you ever got the idea that I was advocating more coal, the flattening of mountains or the wiping out of ecosystems? Undersea turbines are "simply" like windmills placed in strong currents (or tides). I'm sure you're familiar with photovoltaics, and the nano-generators are just small piezo's. But as far as nuclear is concerned, I'll probably get interested again if they can scale up axisymmetric tandem mirror fusion or something similar.

[quotation]

If I was king of the world, I'd actually press for new plants, more than I'd upgrade current plants, but I would construct the new plants based on much newer technologies...

Yeah, what are the French like 3 generations ahead of us? If we could do something like that then it might make sense, but I really have a feeling that the days of fission are waning, so I'd just keep enough money rolling into the existing plants to ensure they don't crap out before they're decomissioned. I know that doesn't sit well with folks in the industry, but...

[Swift]

Not sure how on earth you ever got the idea that I was advocating more coal, the flattening of mountains or the wiping out of ecosystems? Undersea turbines are "simply" like windmills placed in strong currents (or tides). I'm sure you're familiar with photovoltaics, and the nano-generators are just small piezo's. But as far as nuclear is concerned, I'll probably get interested again if they can scale up axisymmetric tandem mirror fusion or something similar.

But I wonder, what are the total environmental and economic impacts of any of these, or other energy technologies. Many photovoltaic materials are energy intensive materials to make, they often use rare (and thus difficult to mine) trace materials, and are processed with chemicals such as HF. Wind turbines can kill lots of birds and bats, and there is a recent study that the increase local air temperatures (by mixing of the atmosphere during normal night time cooling). I don't know if undersea turbines have any sort of similar effects, but I wouldn't assume they don't.

At one time (within my lifetime), dams and hydroelectric power were advocated as the green energy source, with zero carbon footprint and no pollution, until people started looking at such issues as water shortages and diversions, silt build-up in rivers, and destructive effects on fish breeding populations, and even localized climate changes.

Again, I'm not saying I oppose any of these technologies. But if we are going to do a comparison of the various technologies, you have to look at the total consequence of its use, and I don't know of any technology that doesn't have some negative consequences.

[cjameshuff]

Not sure how on earth you ever got the idea that I was advocating more coal, the flattening of mountains or the wiping out of ecosystems? Undersea turbines are "simply" like windmills placed in strong currents (or tides). I'm sure you're familiar with photovoltaics, and the nano-generators are just small piezo's.

None of those can replace nuclear. They range from being expensive and very limited in area of applicability (undersea turbines) to being expensive, low density, intermittent, and not particularly green (solar, tidal), to being almost completely useless (piezoelectric nano-generators). For the bulk of power production, "alternative to nuclear" means "coal power".

[Swift]

<snip>
... but I really have a feeling that the days of fission are waning

I agree. But unfortunately, I have no feeling that these kinds of decisions are being made by a careful technical and economic analysis of the costs and benefits of nuclear fission versus any other energy technology. I think these kinds of decisions are being made by fear and other emotions (among both the general public and the political leaders), by political philosphies, by incorrect assumptions and beliefs, by concern over only the short term (mostly economic) impacts (with a complete disregard over long term impacts), and by the lobbying efforts of those who would benefit financially from their technology "winning".

[headrush]

With reference to mention of biodiesel, we have to be careful what we are discussing. If we specify waste vegetable oil as the base then there is a lot more going on than just "fill 'er up". Recipes I've seen specify a 12.5% methanol requirement and also addition of lye and energy used in washing and drying the product. That energy and those other chemicals are coming from fossil fuels !

If we are talking about pure plant oils then they must either have diesel or petroleum added to thin them down, or the engine must be adapted. All that takes energy, as does the growing and fertilisation of the crop.

There is no panacea for green energy.

ETA - We should also take the loss of valuble horticultural land to biodiesel production into account. The world population isn't getting any smaller and without fossil fuels for fertilisers and mechanisation, we would not even be able to feed the current population.

[quotation]

None of those can replace nuclear. They range from being expensive and very limited in area of applicability (undersea turbines) to being expensive, low density, intermittent, and not particularly green (solar, tidal), to being almost completely useless (piezoelectric nano-generators). For the bulk of power production, "alternative to nuclear" means "coal power".

No, but all of them working together might. As noted earlier by several others a diversified approach is called for regardless, so for example: expensive undersea turbines for industrial use, rare-earth intensive (for now...i'm long in molybdenum actually) photovoltaics for the household and nano at the personal level might put a big dent in it. I'm an optimist, so I think we still have time for a nice smooth transition. If we gave these guys half of what it would cost to build a new nuclear plant, I wonder how far along they'd be, say 3 years from now (legal obstacles notwithstanding):

http://upressonline.com/2012/05/fau-...ater-turbines/
May 9, 2012
By Dylan Bouscher
FAU is now one step closer to generating power from the Gulf Stream.

“I was an ocean engineering student 44 years ago,” he said. “And we should have been at this point 40 years ago.”

[quotation]

I agree. But unfortunately, I have no feeling that these kinds of decisions are being made by a careful technical and economic analysis of the costs and benefits of nuclear fission versus any other energy technology. I think these kinds of decisions are being made by fear and other emotions (among both the general public and the political leaders), by political philosphies, by incorrect assumptions and beliefs, by concern over only the short term (mostly economic) impacts (with a complete disregard over long term impacts), and by the lobbying efforts of those who would benefit financially from their technology "winning".

I completely agree, and unfortunately as my old man used to say, "such is life." He was an engineer. My uncle was a salesman. Whenever my uncle wanted to push the old man's buttons, all he'd say was "nothing happens until a sale." The old man would go ballistic, noting there would be nothing to sell without engineers, but he was wrong. A good salesman never let a lack of product stand in the way of taking another man's money. Sales rules. Money flows downhill. Science and technology need money. You can make up your own end to the story

[geonuc]

Yeah, what are the French like 3 generations ahead of us?

No, not really. Their plants aren't too much different in technology than what the US has, and I think their next generation design is about on par with what ours are (will be), although somewhat different in approach.

[cjameshuff]

No, but all of them working together might.

Not even close.

As noted earlier by several others a diversified approach is called for regardless, so for example: expensive undersea turbines for industrial use, rare-earth intensive (for now...i'm long in molybdenum actually) photovoltaics for the household and nano at the personal level might put a big dent in it. I'm an optimist, so I think we still have time for a nice smooth transition. If we gave these guys half of what it would cost to build a new nuclear plant, I wonder how far along they'd be, say 3 years from now (legal obstacles notwithstanding):

Piezoelectric nanogenerators are useful for scavenging vibration for low-power sensors, and that's it. They're not going to power anything more significant than a basic watch. Photovoltaics use ultra-pure silicon which is extremely energy intensive to produce, and use further energy-intensive and polluting processes to fabricate it into panels and dope it to produce power when light hits it, and require vast surface areas of this not-remotely-green photovoltaic material to produce useful power, which they can only do during the day in sunny climates. The only one of those that has any chance of replacing any amount of nuclear power is undersea turbines, and those are an expensive maintenance nightmare and likely ecological disaster on top of being extremely limited in useful locations. So, you're replacing nuclear power with coal, and throwing money at things that'll never replace either. Grand plan!

[Gigabyte]

A discussion of alternative power, nuclear vs coal, and all unrelated issues would be a great topic.

[Ara Pacis]

I don't see any reason that biodiesel would be significantly different than regular diesel for these types of pollutants. I think engine-to-engine differences would account for variations as much as small changes in the diesel fuel.

On the flip side, I really don't see it taking much wind out of the sails (or sales) for bio-diesel. The proponents of either should recognize that the carbon dioxide generated and the pollutants generated by diesel engines are much the same, whether the fuel comes from petroleum or used cooking oil. The small advantages of biodiesel are because of other things (like reusing used cooking oil).

There also may be an advantage for biodiesel from this report. One of the problems with pollution from diesels is that the catalytic converters that are used to decrease pollution from gasoline engines, could not be used for diesels; one of the big reasons is that diesel fuel is generally much higher for sulfur content, and the sulfur poisons the catalysts. That is why in the US, diesel fuel has to meet much tighter sulfur limits, so that catalytic converters can be used.

Though it is a somewhat dependent upon raw material source, biodiesels are almost universally very low in sulfur.

That's what I was wondering about, if sulfur content was part of the reason for the carcinogens. Biodiesel is good for AGW concerns as it's part of a shallow carbon cycle, excluding petrochemicals in agriculture and transportation.

[Ara Pacis]

Piezoelectric nanogenerators are useful for scavenging vibration for low-power sensors, and that's it. They're not going to power anything more significant than a basic watch. Photovoltaics use ultra-pure silicon which is extremely energy intensive to produce, and use further energy-intensive and polluting processes to fabricate it into panels and dope it to produce power when light hits it, and require vast surface areas of this not-remotely-green photovoltaic material to produce useful power, which they can only do during the day in sunny climates. The only one of those that has any chance of replacing any amount of nuclear power is undersea turbines, and those are an expensive maintenance nightmare and likely ecological disaster on top of being extremely limited in useful locations. So, you're replacing nuclear power with coal, and throwing money at things that'll never replace either. Grand plan!

Other forms of solar are being worked on, such as solar thermal, and alternatives to silcon are being explored, such as quantum dots.

[quotation]

The Wall Street Journal's "JapanRealTime" or JRT, started a new feature Tuesday called "Fukushima Watch" that will daily address, "ever-broadening concerns over radiation, health and safety — also the nationwide debate the accident sparked on energy: where to get it, how much is needed, who should provide it and what kind."
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2...kushima-watch/

[headrush]

The Wall Street Journal's "JapanRealTime" or JRT, started a new feature Tuesday called "Fukushima Watch" that will daily address, "ever-broadening concerns over radiation, health and safety — also the nationwide debate the accident sparked on energy: where to get it, how much is needed, who should provide it and what kind."
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2...kushima-watch/

That's not a very accurate quote and very nearly takes it out of context. You added "that will daily address" which makes it look as though there is some kind of urgent daily safety briefing being issued. The actual point of the blog is to help provide facts not panic.

I'm also not sure whether they mean "health and safety" or radiation, health, safety. (one's a department title, the other's a list of subjects)They can be interpreted very differently.

[headrush]

Sorry to butt in again but another one of Fukushima Watch's blog entries is :

Fukushima Prefecture Town Seeks to Restart Tourism

With a quote from the mayor of Aizu-Wakamatsu (100km fromFukushima Daiichi) of Fukushima prefecture saying

We have not had high levels of radioactivity — please come and visit us to see what it’s like

[Ara Pacis]

Sorry to butt in again but another one of Fukushima Watch's blog entries is :

Fukushima Prefecture Town Seeks to Restart Tourism

With a quote from the mayor of Aizu-Wakamatsu (100km fromFukushima Daiichi) of Fukushima prefecture saying

As if I live in a place that has high radiation and I'd like to visit a place with low radiation... Actually, that might be accurate, they are finding tritium around here and lots of four-leaf clovers.

[Gigabyte]

It's a standard line from those who profit from releasing harmful chemicals into our air, that it wasn't that much, it got dispersed, it didn't harm anyone.

BP maintains the chemicals released during the emissions event did not harm anyone.

“Neither the community air monitoring network nor the BP fence-line monitors showed elevated (harmful emission) readings during April and May 2010, and we do not believe that any negative health impacts resulted from flaring at BP’s Texas City Refinery during this period,” BP spokesman Michael Marr said.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/321774

Believe it or not, the exact same thing is being claimed about Fukushima. My favorite one is, "How many people died from Fukushima radiation?", and then we are urged to move on as if it's no big deal.

[Gillianren]

Believe it or not, the exact same thing is being claimed about Fukushima. My favorite one is, "How many people died from Fukushima radiation?", and then we are urged to move on as if it's no big deal.

Well? What's the answer?

[NEOWatcher]

It's a standard line from those who profit from releasing harmful chemicals into our air, that it wasn't that much, it got dispersed, it didn't harm anyone.

Yes, It's a standard line, after all, they are covering thier behinds. If it's true, then there truly is no harm. If it's not true, then they should be roasted for lying.

But; they are not profitting from it. They are profitting in spite of it.

They will get investigated, fined, sued, etc. It's not a profit, and they would have taken steps to prevent it if they knew it would happen.