[Rhodes22-list] Nuclear Energy

[Roger Pihlaja]

Bill,

OK, here we go again.  Taking your "arguments" one at a time:


> You and others argued for the continued development of Nuclear Energy.
> That carries with it the development of nuclear energy by other
> countries, as well as us--meaning that everyone will figure out how to
> pack that energy into very small packages that can be exported at will.
> Pakistan, a Muslim military dictatorship, has amply demonstrated this
> capability by exporting bomb technology all over the world.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty allowed for all countries that already
had a nuclear power industry at the time to continue to build nuclear power
plants.  All signatories to the treaty also pledged to work to prevent
nuclear proliferation.  Thus, your argument is fallacious in it's very 1st
premise.  Frankly, I do not care what France, Russia, and others do to solve
their energy problems as long as they do not sell nuclear technology to
rogue states.  I also do not expect to make the Yuka Mountain Long Term
Nuclear Waste Repository available to them.  Let other countries build their
own long term storage facilities.  Therefore, yes the United States could
and should build a new generation of nuclear power plants, and fuel them
with our own domestic uranium reserves.  Unlike Iran, the United States
currently imports over 50% of its crude oil.  Thus, our energy situation is
fundamentally different from Iran's.


> The President of the United States claims our Social Security system is
> in crisis because it will be underfunded in 75 years.  If we can look 75
> years ahead, and plan for the future, why can't Iran or any other
> country do the same thing?

First of all, it's difficult to make the connection between a United States
social program in financial trouble and Iran's supposed need for nuclear
power.  I wish you would stay on topic, Bill.   However, since you brought
up this rather obtuse metaphor, let's explore it.  As I stated in my earlier
e-mail, Iran's energy needs will be completely served for the next 50-75
years by her proven reserves of fossil fuels.  Nuclear power plants are
typically built assuming a 40-50 year useful lifespan.  Thus, any Iranian
nuclear power plants built now will be obsolete, worn-out, and used up by
the time Iran actually needed them.  Note, that you cannot just "extend" the
useful lifespan of a nuclear power plant.  Continual bombardment of critical
components in the reactor core and containment vessel with neutrons over a
long period of time tends to embrittle the metal structural components at
the atomic level.  This is a real potential safety issue with older nuclear
power plants and is the primary technical reason why the older reactors get
shut down and decommissioned.

Like any country, Iran has a finite amount of capital.  It is bad economic
policy for them to squander their capital on the building of nuclear power
plants, when the country's energy needs can be more economically met with
domestic (i.e. Iranian) fossil fuel reserves.  The needs of the Iranian
people and the country would be better served if that capital were invested
in any of a thousand other projects that would return a better return on
investment (ROI).


> World problems are complex, and they are not solved by simplistic
> thinking.  I can make a case for Nuclear Energy, however any case for
> nuclear energy must address the fact that everyone who learns that
> technology will inevitably also learn how to create devastating weapons
> using the same knowledge.
>
> Nuclear weapons are one of the small number of genies that can be put
> back into the bottle.  The whole world knew that Iraq didn't have
> them--only the President of the United States claimed to have better
> information than everyone else, justifying his invasion, at a time when
> weapons inspectors on the ground said unequivocally that Iraq did not
> currently possess nuclear weapons.
>
> Nuclear power plants can mask the presence of nuclear weapons.  That's
> why Iran wants them.  You can't say that we should switch to nuclear
> energy, but at the same time we should prevent everyone else from doing
> the same thing.  Either nobody gets them, or everybody gets them.
>
> When push comes to shove, I think I fall on the side of nobody gets
> them.  We should work to develop other means to harness energy.  While
> we may run out of oil, the current model of the universe predicts that
> we will always have more energy than we can safely use.  Certainly we
> won't have to worry about that for the next couple of billion years.

I believe I already answered your rather convoluted argument above when I
discussed the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty.  Basically, your premise is
false; therefore, your conclusion is also false.  As far as what WMD's &/or
programs Iraq did or did not have, when Iraq did or did not have them, what
the president may or may not have known & when, and what WMD's may or may
not have been hidden &/or smuggled out to places like Syria or Iraq; these
topics have been debated and discussed ad-nausium on this list and in the
press.  I do not intend to get into them again.  You are off topic again,
Bill.  While the universe may have more than enough energy to keep shining
for several billion more years; that, isn't true of the earth in general or
of the United States in particular.  Bill, you need to take a realistic look
at US energy supply and demand.  Unless you are willing to take drastic
reductions in population &/or standard of living; then, our present
situation is not sustainable without more nuclear power in this country.  As
a big city dweller, you and your neighbors are going to have to bear a
disproportionate share of the population &/or lifestyle cutbacks.  Big
populous cities are simply the least sustainable lifestyle without modern
technology and ample energy supplies.  Since your personal lifestyle is
among the most at risk, the list would be interested in hearing how you
personally are helping in any substantial way to solve the energy crisis
without nuclear power.

FYI, in 2004, wind and solar electric together accounted for less than 0.4%
of electric generation capacity in the United States.

While the Unites States can certainly burn more coal, there are some serious
consequences to that strategy.  Even assuming the use of Most Effective
Technology (MET) to capture NOx, SOx, Hg, Cr, V, Se, Sn, Pb,and particulate
fly ash from the power plant stack gases AND assuming MET mining and land
reclamation practices, coal is still the most intrinsically polluting fossil
fuel going.   Note that all of the assumptions in the previous sentence set
the bar very high and are by no means assured!  But, even with all the above
safeguards in place and functioning perfectly, burning coal still produces
more CO2 greenhouse gas emissions than any other fossil fuel.  The amounts
of coal that would have to be burned to satisfy the nation's energy
requirements and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions are truly
astronomical!   I've looked at the scientific & engineering literature
published to date on the technology of CO2 sequestration from fossil fuel
exhaust gases and it reads like somebody's science fiction wet dream!  In my
professional engineering judgement, it's not even technically possible to
say nothing of economically attractive on anything but a very small scale.

Bill, in your own words, "World problems are complex and they are not solved
by simplistic thinking."  How can you say that and then, three paragraphs
later say, "Either nobody gets them (nuclear power plants or nuclear
weapons?) or everybody gets them."  How insightful!  How nonsimplistic!  How
United Nations!  You truly have a stunning grasp of the world political
situation. :)

In my "If I Were Energy Tsar Of The United States" e-mail to Brad on the
Rhodes List of  01/07/2005, I outlined a reasonable and doable energy policy
that would keep the lights on, the nation's wheels turning, not plunge the
economy into recession, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce our
dependence on foreign oil.  Among other actions, that strategy depends
critically on building a new generation of nuclear power plants here in the
United States.  Actually, it would be nice to see the president and the
congress pass ANY sort of coherent energy policy.  A big part of our problem
is that we have no energy policy at present.

Bill, if you can suggest a comprehensive energy strategy that can actually
work without killing off millions of people, causing global warming,
throwing the economy into another great depression, and downgrading our
lifestyle back to the early 19th century without using nuclear power; then,
this whole list (the whole country!) would absolutely love to hear it.  In
your response, please try to stay on topic.  It's the adult thing to do. :)

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Nuclear Energy


> Roger,
>
> Of course I wonder why they want it.
>
> But that's not the point.
>
> You and others argued for the continued development of Nuclear Energy.
> That carries with it the development of nuclear energy by other
> countries, as well as us--meaning that everyone will figure out how to
> pack that energy into very small packages that can be exported at will.
> Pakistan, a Muslim military dictatorship, has amply demonstrated this
> capability by exporting bomb technology all over the world.
>
> The President of the United States claims our Social Security system is
> in crisis because it will be underfunded in 75 years.  If we can look 75
> years ahead, and plan for the future, why can't Iran or any other
> country do the same thing?
>
> World problems are complex, and they are not solved by simplistic
> thinking.  I can make a case for Nuclear Energy, however any case for
> nuclear energy must address the fact that everyone who learns that
> technology will inevitably also learn how to create devastating weapons
> using the same knowledge.
>
> Nuclear weapons are one of the small number of genies that can be put
> back into the bottle.  The whole world knew that Iraq didn't have
> them--only the President of the United States claimed to have better
> information than everyone else, justifying his invasion, at a time when
> weapons inspectors on the ground said unequivocally that Iraq did not
> currently possess nuclear weapons.
>
> Nuclear power plants can mask the presence of nuclear weapons.  That's
> why Iran wants them.  You can't say that we should switch to nuclear
> energy, but at the same time we should prevent everyone else from doing
> the same thing.  Either nobody gets them, or everybody gets them.
>
> When push comes to shove, I think I fall on the side of nobody gets
> them.  We should work to develop other means to harness energy.  While
> we may run out of oil, the current model of the universe predicts that
> we will always have more energy than we can safely use.  Certainly we
> won't have to worry about that for the next couple of billion years.
>
> So where do you fall?  Is nuclear energy too dangerous, or isn't it?  Is
> it OK for Iran to have nuclear power plants, or not?  You can't have it
> both ways, and people like you are the people who will decide how this
> goes.  If you say the engineering equivalent of "Damn the
> torpedoes--full speed ahead!" this world will be awash with nuclear
> weapons.  If you say "We've got to do better!" you and others like you
> can work to find energy sources that don't have the dangers attendant to
> nuclear energy.
>
> In a serious discussion of the matter, I don't see how you can take one
> position with regard to "us" and a different position with regard to
"them".
>
> Bill Effros
>
>
> Roger Pihlaja wrote:
>
> >Bill,
> >
> >You have to wonder why they want it.  Iran is sitting on proven reserves
of
> >about 1 trillion barrels of crude oil as well as copious quantities of
> >natural gas.  The country has excellent warm water, ice-free port
facilities
> >to ship their crude oil and natural gas.  They have a pretty good
> >intra-country pipeline and refinery infrastructure.  They have zero
reserves
> >of uranium.  At the present rate of energy production & given Iran's
current
> >population, GDP, & growth rate, their proven fossil fuel reserves will
> >supply all their internal energy and export needs for the next 50-75
years,
> >even if the country gets heavily into manufacturing petrochemicals like
> >polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, etc.  That's enough time to build and
> >use up at least 1 generation of nuclear power plants before they are even
> >necessary.
> >
> >Gee, do you think maybe, just maybe, Iran has an alternate agenda here?
> >
> >Roger Pihlaja
> >S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
> >To: "R22 List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:52 PM
> >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Nucular Energy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Been meaning to ask.
> >>
> >>How 'bout that Iran?
> >>
> >>Do they get to have nuclear energy, too?
> >>
> >>Or is it only safe enough for us?
> >>
> >>Bill Effros
> >>__________________________________________________
> >>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>