USA Politics (redux)

[Spotted Horses]

The bottom line is that the radioactive materials that fuel nuclear reactors already exist in our environment, but they are dispersed. We mine them, concentrate them and nuclear reactors transform them into other highly concentrated radioactive materials. It seems to me that a sensible way to dispose of the waste product might be to disperse in a way that doesn't result in high concentrations appearing in the atmosphere, ground water, etc.

[Spotted Horses]

Maybe even less than 100 years.

Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future. Always has been, always will be....

[SimonNZ]

Objection to nuclear energy is simply irrational and that irrationality can no longer be tolerated give the impending global warming catastrophy.

We are only ten years out from Fukushima, so some skepticism may be permitted without being called irrational.

Regarding safe and easy storage of waste as well as the safety of facilitids: how would you rate the strength of environmental regulations and enforcement where you are  or in neighboring countries? Other environmental disaster have proven that there is little incentive to do anything other than the barest minimum and little punishment when even that is not met.

[Fëanor]

We are only ten years out from Fukushima, so some skepticism may be permitted without being called irrational.

Regarding safe and easy storage of waste as well as the safety of facilitids: how would you rate the strength of environmental regulations and enforcement where you are  or in neighboring countries? Other environmental disaster have proven that there is little incentive to do anything other than the barest minimum and little punishment when even that is not met.

Your concern for regulations and, (especially) enforcement as is certainly valid.  In countries like the USA, Germany, Canada, Japan, et al., regulation &  enforcement certainly are no insurmountable barrier.

Fukushima-based concerns are overblown and therefore irrational.  As I understand only one death can be directly attributable to the Fukushima melt-down;  there are very slight increases in cancers and prenatal pregnancy terminations.  The biggest problem was the immense disruption and evacuations.
Fukushima was the result of faulty design, that is, backup generators were place where they were vulnerable to the flooding as a result of the tsunami.

Deaths from nuclear generator accident are grossly impacted by a single horrific incident, Chernobyl.

But everything is relative and everything has risks.  The objective fact remains that nuclear is far cleaner and safer than any non-weather dependent energy generation method.  The global warming crisis demands of the nuclear resource.  See ... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy.

[krummholz]

Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future. Always has been, always will be....

Seems to me they said something similar about powered flight too, once upon a time...

[MusicTurner]

Seems to me they said something similar about powered flight too, once upon a time...

Yes, and there's been some more optimistic news regarding concrete developments in fusion energy recently.

[Spotted Horses]

Yes, and there's been some more optimistic news regarding concrete developments in fusion energy recently.

Such as?

I've noticed a few press releases from tech companies, military contractors, predicting that their new hot-shot team will produce a small fusion reactor on a short time line. Then....silence. They are novices who just don't understand the problem.

Edward Teller summarized the problem with fusion by magnetic confinement. "It's like trying to confine jelly with rubber bands."

[drogulus]

     https://www.youtube.com/v/LJ4W1g-6JiY&t

[fbjim]

I'm generally skeptical about tech-positivity of this kind because the message is that the solution to a large-scale problem is easy, casting some future tech as savior. Gathering the political willpower and social strength to collectively reduce consumption and production is enormously difficult- even building new nuke plants is hard. Waiting for technology X to solve everything (ideally without any required changes to the lifestyles of the average Westerner) is easy.

[fbjim]

Your concern for regulations and, (especially) enforcement as is certainly valid.  In countries like the USA, Germany, Canada, Japan, et al., regulation &  enforcement certainly are no insurmountable barrier.

Fukushima-based concerns are overblown and therefore irrational.  As I understand only one death can be directly attributable to the Fukushima melt-down;  there are very slight increases in cancers and prenatal pregnancy terminations.  The biggest problem was the immense disruption and evacuations.
Fukushima was the result of faulty design, that is, backup generators were place where they were vulnerable to the flooding as a result of the tsunami.

Deaths from nuclear generator accident are grossly impacted by a single horrific incident, Chernobyl.

But everything is relative and everything has risks.  The objective fact remains that nuclear is far cleaner and safer than any non-weather dependent energy generation method.  The global warming crisis demands of the nuclear resource.  See ... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy.

It very much reminds me of the perception of safety between air travel and driving. Air travel's perception is skewed by the high visibility of incidents, while people die all the time on the roads and nobody particularly cares. As someone with a severe fear of flying*, I can sympathize.


*this pandemic has been a godsend for being an excuse to avoid flying home for the holidays 

[Spotted Horses]

     https://www.youtube.com/v/LJ4W1g-6JiY&t

Interesting.

This is what I was remembering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

In 2013 they promised a working fusion reactor in 5 years. They've since announced new prototypes, but no data.

I have some exposure to this stuff. I took a mathematical methods class from the fellow who became chief scientist if ITER. I had another theoretical physicist on my exam committee who became chief scientist of another fusion project. I asked him, "will fusion energy ever work?" He answered, "Of course not!" "Who are you working on it, then?" "It's such a fascinating problem, (giggle).")

[MusicTurner]

I didn't watch the video & only stumble across some new at times, not making a record of them, but, in the news:

- Nov. 17th. A very good summary article, it seems, including about ITER (first test 2025, bigger tests around 2035), China CFETR (2030s), SPARC (2025 - 2030s) and GF-Culham (2025? 2030s?), Helion (2024?), and the various new techniques
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-021-03401-w/index.html

- Dec. 1st SPARC https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-fusion-startup-lands-1-8-billion-as-investors-chase-star-power-11638334801

- Nov.: Oncoming US Senate bill providing further means and context ($ 885 mio), but possibly with changes:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/proposed-nuclear-energy-and-fusion-4751783/
https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/post/support-for-fusion-energy-in-the-house-passed-build-back-better-legislation


(etc.)

[SimonNZ]

Your concern for regulations and, (especially) enforcement as is certainly valid.  In countries like the USA, Germany, Canada, Japan, et al., regulation &  enforcement certainly are no insurmountable barrier.

Fukushima-based concerns are overblown and therefore irrational.  As I understand only one death can be directly attributable to the Fukushima melt-down;  there are very slight increases in cancers and prenatal pregnancy terminations.  The biggest problem was the immense disruption and evacuations.
Fukushima was the result of faulty design, that is, backup generators were place where they were vulnerable to the flooding as a result of the tsunami.

Deaths from nuclear generator accident are grossly impacted by a single horrific incident, Chernobyl.

But everything is relative and everything has risks.  The objective fact remains that nuclear is far cleaner and safer than any non-weather dependent energy generation method.  The global warming crisis demands of the nuclear resource.  See ...

I can't share your faith in the state of environmental regulations in America, I'm afraid. I can't remember who Trump put in the head job, but it was something like Melania's florist, with a brief to get out of the way of business. I's the subject of Michael Lewis' Vook The Fifth Risk - unqualified cronies put in vital positions and the blind spots and lack of future planning that results. I'm not sure how much Biden has rolled that back, but my impression is that in most of recent times even with better focus those agencies have been toothless.

And again about regulation in neighboring countries: how much would you trust a Tijuana reactor to not have a Chernobyl-level event? That's not a Mexico problem. Nor is any reactor problem anywhere a national problem.

And even after "cleanups" from these events and leaks of waste there are ever increasing areas of earth effectively uninhabitable due to this poisoning. See Kate Brown's book Plutopia, or the closing chapeters of Anne Garrels' Putin Country for a look at out nuclear environmental future, even without catastrophic events.

Re climate change: I can only add a big yes to the person above who said we must change our profligate ways - both consumers and business - rather than hope for a future magic science fix.

[drogulus]

     If you want safe nuclear you have to build modern reactors and retire older ones that are more dangerous. People rightly worry about Chernobyl and Fukushima, then shit the bed by retarding progress towards reactors that can't melt down or explode. These reactors exist now, but nuclear hysteria has given rise to a form of solution hatred, as though the no nukers just can't contemplate living in a world that doesn't have nuclear panic in it. Safe reactors just don't feel right, so let's not build them. It would better to protest the ones we have for like ever if not longer.

[SimonNZ]

     If you want safe nuclear you have to build modern reactors and retire older ones that are more dangerous. People rightly worry about Chernobyl and Fukushima, then shit the bed by retarding progress towards reactors that can't melt down or explode. These reactors exist now, but nuclear hysteria has given rise to a form of solution hatred, as though the no nukers just can't contemplate living in a world that doesn't have nuclear panic in it. Safe reactors just don't feel right, so let's not build them. It would better to protest the ones we have for like ever if not longer.

Okay...I don't want to be a mere bed-shitter, so could I have some information about the state of this progress?

[SimonNZ]

Its also hard to hold a position on an issue based on what may or may not exist in the future rather than what does now. And if the decision comes down tomorrow that to address climate change all power in nuclear, then what is getting built except what exists? (Actually I'm confused by your post - you say both that we are working towards them and that they exist - do they "exist" theoretically, or in untested prototype?)

And me taking a Sounds better but I'll believe it when I see it attitude is not standing in the way of it.

And, quite frankly putting your hopes in another maybe just around the corner thing is not addressing the changes that need to be made right now.

[Fëanor]

Okay...I don't want to be a mere bed-shitter, so could I have some information about the state of this progress?

Unlike fusion reactors, the tech to produce safe nuclear reactors exists.

Google is your friend:  some results for reactors that can't melt down ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/24/can-we-make-a-nuclear-reactor-that-wont-melt-down/?sh=336434115b7e

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/07/nuclear-power-balls-may-make-meltdowns-a-thing-of-the-past/


https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-meltdown-no-graphite-us-nuclear-reactors-2016-4

https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/08/02/158134/fail-safe-nuclear-power/

[SimonNZ]

Actually I spent a part of today looking at exactly those articles.

But it's unclear how much is wishful thinking and best foot forward.

[Fëanor]

I can't share your faith in the state of environmental regulations in America, I'm afraid. I can't remember who Trump put in the head job, but it was something like Melania's florist, with a brief to get out of the way of business. I's the subject of Michael Lewis' Vook The Fifth Risk - unqualified cronies put in vital positions and the blind spots and lack of future planning that results. I'm not sure how much Biden has rolled that back, but my impression is that in most of recent times even with better focus those agencies have been toothless.

And again about regulation in neighboring countries: how much would you trust a Tijuana reactor to not have a Chernobyl-level event? That's not a Mexico problem. Nor is any reactor problem anywhere a national problem.

And even after "cleanups" from these events and leaks of waste there are ever increasing areas of earth effectively uninhabitable due to this poisoning. See Kate Brown's book Plutopia, or the closing chapeters of Anne Garrels' Putin Country for a look at out nuclear environmental future, even without catastrophic events.

Re climate change: I can only add a big yes to the person above who said we must change our profligate ways - both consumers and business - rather than hope for a future magic science fix.

How many times does it need to be said?  Nukes are the safest energy source that we have -- that's base on real statistics that include both Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Old design and flaw designs were responsible in both case.  Chernobyl was an inherently archaic and dangerous design that was operated by engineers who both broke procedures and were also ignorant of dangers that they ought to have been made aware of.

Fine, Chernobyl was nasty but more people die every year from basic aspects of coal mining, transport, burning than died as a result of Chernobyl, and that's not even including resulting environmental pollution.  There is the concept of weighing of relative threats.

People ought to encourage their governments to select and build appropriate nuclear facilities -- and stop peeing themselves over exaggerated, avoidable threats.

[MusicTurner]

Apparently won't happen here in DK, where sustainable energy sources (no oil, coal or gas) are currently 80% of electricity consumption and 37% of the total energy consumption, with 100% of electricity and heating planned for 2035, and 100% in all sectors planned for 2050. There might be delays or political revisions, however, and I'm sure some countries will embrace more nuclear energy too, including major players.