Future/Alternative Energy Sources

[benjamminbrown]

@Blagtastic88:

Yeah, there is a lot here to be debated and discussed, but I think maybe we should start up an Alternative Energy/Technology thread for this sort of thing…

Maybe we should open another thread for it!

For me, it doesn't make sense to use fission to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants are so much more expensive to build and maintain than the hydrocarbon variety, and even if they produce next to no carbon waste, their nuclear waste is much more hazardous and will be much more of a hassle to deal with in the long run. Waste staying radioactive for up to (and over) 300 years is not a good sign, right? Is the LFTR really meltdown-proof? If you're putting enough fuel into it to create a sizable explosion, then I'd say that it isn't. I'll be honest, fission power plants scare the crap out of me, and I think that we'd be better off without them (except for research purposes).

Here, let's take something that the environment has adapted/is adapting to already (excess carbon emissions) and replace it with something way more insidious and volatile (radioactive waste) that will ultimately break DNA strands when it finally decides to undergo radioactive decay. Bad idea! Not only is it more expensive to make the waste in the first place, but it's way more expensive to process/extract/confine and protect the environment from, once you've made it. With our current technology, fission power simply isn't cost effective. And it's just an awful idea for the planet as a whole, if you ask me. OK, there's radioactive stuff in the hydrocarbons we burn, too. I guess that all modern powerplants just suck major balls.

Personally, I think that fusion is a much more attractive alternative, and am hopeful that we'll have it figured out in the next 50 years. The JET experiment is supposed to reach near breakeven efficiency over the next couple of years (news). In the following decades, ITER will likely prove the efficacy of the magnetic confinement approach and show that reliable fusion power plants can be made. That is, if it really does get the funding that it was promised (news).

Once they become cost effective to build, fusion power plants will usher in a new era for fuel burning energy production. We can even use them to replenish our supply of Helium, a very precious and rapidly vanishing commodity (news).

You're right, though. Wind and wave power aren't really that great for most of the population, but some people living near geographic oddities may be able to take advantage of them. There's something about geothermal that just isn't sexy enough, I guess. It really is a great idea, but I don't know too much about it.

Solar is probably going to be the way that we end up doing things in the future, if you ask me. The technology still has a long way to go (like fusion), but it's already shown a lot of promise. Carbon nanotubes are being produced in greater and greater quantities every year, I bet that we're not too far from figuring out mass production. Some small companies have already started creating specialized carbon nanotube components that are compatible with our existing computer circuitry (more news).

We'll probably have to agree to disagree about batteries.

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

Here, let's take something that the environment has adapted/is adapting to already (excess carbon emissions) and replace it with something way more insidious and volatile (radioactive waste) that will ultimately break DNA strands when it finally decides to undergo radioactive decay. Bad idea! Not only is it more expensive to make the waste in the first place, but it's way more expensive to process/extract/confine and protect the environment from, once you've made it. With our current technology, fission power simply isn't cost effective. And it's just an awful idea for the planet as a whole, if you ask me. OK, there's radioactive stuff in the hydrocarbons we burn, too. I guess that all modern powerplants just suck major balls.
I like your casual dismissal of atmospheric carbon (etc) as something "the environment has adapted to." But really, fission isn't that expensive. Compared to dirty hydrocarbon power, sure, but otherwise …

Personally, I think that fusion is a much more attractive alternative, and am hopeful that we'll have it figured out in the next 50 years. The JET experiment is supposed to reach near breakeven efficiency over the next couple of years (news). In the following decades, ITER will likely prove the efficacy of the magnetic confinement approach and show that reliable fusion power plants can be made. That is, if it really does get the funding that it was promised (news).

It's not an alternative if the technology isn't actually there yet. We've been on the cusp of fusion power generation for half a century, and we might well be there for a hell of a lot longer. We were thinking we were close to getting fusion power when JET was built. Jet is old. They built a scale model of the actual reactor and surrounding machinery etc because
a) this was before the age of CAD
b) it was too complicated to do just drawings.

And they have it sitting in a display case for visitors, which I found kind of funny.

They also had an air cannon, but I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

[benjamminbrown]

@Supernova122:

I like your casual dismissal of atmospheric carbon (etc) as something "the environment has adapted to." But really, fission isn't that expensive. Compared to dirty hydrocarbon power, sure, but otherwise …

Forgive me for seeming dismissive, but what I typed was "has adapted/is adapting to". Carbon dioxide is something that life on Earth has been adapting to for a very long time. It's one of the reasons we can do things like carbon dating.

Furthermore, it would be ridiculous for us to think that we could significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels using any of the currently existing alternative energy schemes. We're simply talking about possibilities, here, Supernova.

Attempting to directly or indirectly change the currently existing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely not a wise move ecologically speaking, but probably not as awful as, say, spewing tons of radioactive waste into it instead. This is the point that I was trying to make.

If you think that fission isn't expensive, then what do you think about what happened in Japan in 2011? For which they are still paying ridiculous amounts of money to "clean" up? There have been a lot of these kinds of accidents in recent human history. Basically, I don't trust us humans to handle large quantities or concentrations of fissile material very well.

This is what I mean when I say that fission is more costly than currently existing hydrocarbon plants.

@Supernova122:

It's not an alternative if the technology isn't actually there yet. We've been on the cusp of fusion power generation for half a century, and we might well be there for a hell of a lot longer. We were thinking we were close to getting fusion power when JET was built. Jet is old. They built a scale model of the actual reactor and surrounding machinery etc because
a) this was before the age of CAD
b) it was too complicated to do just drawings.

And they have it sitting in a display case for visitors, which I found kind of funny.

They also had an air cannon, but I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

Well, yes, JET is very old. Like most of the currently existing fusion experiments, it has been around forever and has been continually upgraded and updated. Fusion researchers, being intelligent and frugal guys, have been doing what they can with as little money as possible, continuing to use reactors that have been built and well researched for many decades. Does this sound ridiculous to you? It sounds like a good idea to me, especially when it's kind of expensive to build a new reactor (ITER is costing upwards of 10 billion euros).

Sure, projections for how well the old reactors would work were a little optimistic from the beginning. But they weren't ultimately unrealistic, since they were based on the assumption that we could control the plasmas inside them well. Now that we are finally getting to the point where we can control the plasmas in those old reactors well, they are actually reaching breakeven efficiency. So there.

Problem with plasmas is that they are faster and more erratic when they are confined to smaller spatial scales. Larger reactors are much easier to use and control, but cost a hell of a lot more to build. I'm betting that initial projections for ITER's power production will be a little too optimistic, as well, but I am sure that in another 50 years or so we'll have ironed out it's kinks.

edit: Let me just say this; I was extremely bummed out when I first started my graduate program in physics. I really wanted to study fusion power, but what the vice chair of the department had essentially said during his little introductory speech was, "we physicists believe that fusion power is no longer a scientific problem, but merely a practical problem for the engineers". If that doesn't tell you that fusion power is a very real possibility for the near future, then I don't know what else will.

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

Forgive me for seeming dismissive, but what I typed was "has adapted/is adapting to". Carbon dioxide is something that life on Earth has been adapting to for a very long time. It's one of the reasons we can do things like carbon dating.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't really see what carbon dating has to do with "adapting to CO2." Isn't carbon dating based on the idea that the concentration of C14 is probably pretty much the same in living things ages ago as it is these days, and hence we can guess when things died from the amount of C14 left over … What does that have to do with "adapting to CO2?" Or more significantly, what at all does it have to do with the general impact of CO2 and similar pollutants in the vein of climate change?

Furthermore, it would be ridiculous for us to think that we could significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels using any of the currently existing alternative energy schemes. We're simply talking about possibilities, here, Supernova.

No it's really not that hard. In terms of power generation, at least, it's pretty easy; it just involves ensuring there's enough other power up and running by the time current gen hydrocarbon sources are being decommissioned, and not preparing to build new hydrocarbon sources. All it's really about is expenses, and that's just a balance of priorities … Fission is pretty cheap compared to clean sources, and nice shortcuts can be taken here and there ... bamboo turbine blades in the East ... private use of solar thermal and PV putting the onus of investment on the individual rather than big companies and governments ... Bit defeatist to say it's all well and good but we can't possibly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels with current technology.

If you think that fission isn't expensive, then what do you think about what happened in Japan in 2011? For which they are still paying ridiculous amounts of money to "clean" up? There have been a lot of these kinds of accidents in recent human history. Basically, I don't trust us humans to handle large quantities or concentrations of fissile material very well.

This is what I mean when I say that fission is more costly than currently existing hydrocarbon plants.

I love how the Fukushima story is the go-to thing. Like how GERMANY throws out Fission owing to Fukushima. All the safety measures weren't even properly in place in the Fukushima plant and it still took a freakishly big quake and tsunami to cause any fallout. And that's Japan … you don't really get more geologically hazardous than Japan. What are the Germans so scared of, a quake in the Baltic??

edit: Let me just say this; I was extremely bummed out when I first started my graduate program in physics. I really wanted to study fusion power, but what the vice chair of the department had essentially said during his little introductory speech was, "we physicists believe that fusion power is no longer a scientific problem, but merely a practical problem for the engineers". If that doesn't tell you that fusion power is a very real possibility for the near future, then I don't know what else will.

That's such a bullshit thing to say lol. As if "Oh we understand the theory" = "Science is irrelevant now" … It's not like science and engineering are sequential, they're two parallel things. Like any Materials Science or Nanoscience department anywhere will be filled with engineers and scientists because there's no discrete jump between the two disciplines.

Like between Galileo and Euler knew a lot about beams but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of new science & engineering going into building design in the early to mid twentieth century.

[benjamminbrown]

@Supernova122:

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't really see what carbon dating has to do with "adapting to CO2." Isn't carbon dating based on the idea that the concentration of C14 is probably pretty much the same in living things ages ago as it is these days, and hence we can guess when things died from the amount of C14 left over … What does that have to do with "adapting to CO2?" Or more significantly, what at all does it have to do with the general impact of CO2 and similar pollutants in the vein of climate change?

Like, I don't know why you're getting so offended by my claims, here, but you definitely are a little ignorant about this stuff. That's not exactly how carbon dating works. You measure the level of C14 in the object, then compare this to how much C14 should have been around at the time the object "took its last breath". We don't just assume that the C14 levels must have been "about the same" as they are today.

If you are living/breathing, then you are exchanging carbon atoms with the atmosphere, continually matching the C14 concentration of the atmosphere. When you die, you stop breathing and exchanging carbon atoms, which means that your C14 concentrations become stuck where they are and will only decrease via radioactive decay. This is the basic idea behind carbon dating.

If you'll carefully look at that graph that I showed you in my last post, you'll see that there's been plenty of carbon in Earth's atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. That's a lot of time for life to start adapting to it, isn't it? Almost all life on the planet makes use of CO2 in its metabolic processes. You're a supernova, so I'll understand if you can metabolize radioactive waste, but most other Earth life forms are incapable of such a feat.

What I'm saying is that it is probably not such a bad thing to be varying concentrations of stuff in the environment, as long as it's stuff that life has been dealing with (metabolizing) for a long time. Radioactive waste, while ever present due to natural fission reactions in the Earth, is also extremely rare. I think it's probably a good thing that we keep it pretty rare, is all.

No it's really not that hard. In terms of power generation, at least, it's pretty easy; it just involves ensuring there's enough other power up and running by the time current gen hydrocarbon sources are being decommissioned, and not preparing to build new hydrocarbon sources. All it's really about is expenses, and that's just a balance of priorities … Fission is pretty cheap compared to clean sources, and nice shortcuts can be taken here and there ... bamboo turbine blades in the East ... private use of solar thermal and PV putting the onus of investment on the individual rather than big companies and governments ... Bit defeatist to say it's all well and good but we can't possibly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels with current technology.

Is it really not that hard? Then why haven't we done it yet? Because it's very hard, expensive, and nigh impossible at this point to fight all the inertia that we have in fossil fuels.

The fact that almost all of our power still comes from hydrocarbon plants (even clean hydrocarbon plants) should make it obvious which energy scheme really is the most cost effective. People aren't going to waste their time and money on ventures that have little return for their investment. It's simple: People invest in hydrocarbon power plants because of how cost effective they are.

Why are fission plants rarer? A lot of reasons: They're harder to design and build. They're more expensive to build. They're more expensive to fuel. The waste is more expensive to dispose of. And finally: They're really goddamn dangerous.

I love how the Fukushima story is the go-to thing. Like how GERMANY throws out Fission owing to Fukushima. All the safety measures weren't even properly in place in the Fukushima plant and it still took a freakishly big quake and tsunami to cause any fallout. And that's Japan … you don't really get more geologically hazardous than Japan. What are the Germans so scared of, a quake in the Baltic??

I love how you seem confused when people bring up recent history. If recent history isn't allowed, then do you want me to talk about Chernobyl? You want me to talk about Three Mile Island? And how we're all still breathing/drinking/eating radioactive waste that these accidents spewed into the atmosphere?

As I've already said, every single fission power plant on Earth works only because you've put enough fuel into it to cause a huge meltdown or explosion if it gets out of control. The process itself simply doesn't work unless you take that risk. I'm saying we should never be taking that risk, at least not anywhere near planet Earth.

That's such a bullshit thing to say lol. As if "Oh we understand the theory" = "Science is irrelevant now" … It's not like science and engineering are sequential, they're two parallel things. Like any Materials Science or Nanoscience department anywhere will be filled with engineers and scientists because there's no discrete jump between the two disciplines.

Like between Galileo and Euler knew a lot about beams but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of new science & engineering going into building design in the early to mid twentieth century.

I consider myself an engineer as much as I consider myself a scientist. Please don't think that I'm trying to say engineering is below science in some way. What I'm trying to say is that there's a general consensus among the physics community that fusion power is "in the bag", something that we'll have completely under control with a little more fine tuning and experience.

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

Like, I don't know why you're getting so offended by my claims

I'm not

That's not exactly how carbon dating works. You measure the level of C14 in the object, then compare this to how much C14 should have been around at the time the object "took its last breath". We don't just assume that the C14 levels must have been "about the same" as they are today.

If you are living/breathing, then you are exchanging carbon atoms with the atmosphere, continually matching the C14 concentration of the atmosphere. When you die, you stop breathing and exchanging carbon atoms, which means that your C14 concentrations become stuck where they are and will only decrease via radioactive decay. This is the basic idea behind carbon dating.

Right, this is what I didn't know. But is C14 proportional to the general CO2 level or … ? I generally get the impression they're not directly related?

If you'll carefully look at that graph that I showed you in my last post, you'll see that there's been plenty of carbon in Earth's atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. That's a lot of time for life to start adapting to it, isn't it? Almost all life on the planet makes use of CO2 in its metabolic processes. You're a supernova, so I'll understand if you can metabolize radioactive waste, but most other Earth life forms are incapable of such a feat.

What I'm saying is that it is probably not such a bad thing to be varying concentrations of stuff in the environment, as long as it's stuff that life has been dealing with (metabolizing) for a long time. Radioactive waste, while ever present due to natural fission reactions in the Earth, is also extremely rare. I think it's probably a good thing that we keep it pretty rare, is all.

But isn't it the case that everyone's issue with carbon emissions is not about it's direct impact on life (as a gas in the air) as it's impact on the climate? I feel like we're almost talking about completely different things >_>

Is it really not that hard? Then why haven't we done it yet? Because it's very hard, expensive, and nigh impossible at this point to fight all the inertia that we have in fossil fuels.

Uh, because it's expensive. And then capitalism. And hence the rest.

Pretty much government policy will decide how large scale power generation is done. Like I said, people do things on their own small scale (solar panels are becoming more and more common to generate a bit of extra power or for heating …), but otherwise it's down to government policy. France is pretty comfortably generating over three quarters of its power from fission, because they got behind nuclear power and put money into it.

I love how you seem confused when people bring up recent history. If recent history isn't allowed, then do you want me to talk about Chernobyl? You want me to talk about Three Mile Island? And how we're all still breathing/drinking/eating radioactive waste that these accidents spewed into the atmosphere?

As I've already said, every single fission power plant on Earth works only because you've put enough fuel into it to cause a huge meltdown or explosion if it gets out of control. The process itself simply doesn't work unless you take that risk. I'm saying we should never be taking that risk, at least not anywhere near planet Earth.
The probability of such an accident occurring is really, really low though. As I'm sure you know, there are great safety measures in place in every fission plant …

I consider myself an engineer as much as I consider myself a scientist. Please don't think that I'm trying to say engineering is below science in some way. What I'm trying to say is that there's a general consensus among the physics community that fusion power is "in the bag", something that we'll have completely under control with a little more fine tuning and experience.

In the same sense it was "in the bag" fifty years ago. It doesn't mean much … fusion's still ages away, most probably (as you more or less said yourself). More than a plant life cycle or two. So it doesn't really impact decisions about what we should use today.

[benjamminbrown]

@Supernova122:

I'm not

Phew!

Right, this is what I didn't know. But is C14 proportional to the general CO2 level or … ? I generally get the impression they're not directly related?

You're right that it's an indirect relationship. Basically, it wouldn't make sense to assume that a given sample of organic matter had equalized its C14 levels with that of the atmosphere if there wasn't a lot of carbon in the atmosphere in the first place. If there were no CO2 to exchange with the environment, then there'd be no reason to guess that all living things have similar carbon composition.

But isn't it the case that everyone's issue with carbon emissions is not about it's direct impact on life (as a gas in the air) as it's impact on the climate? I feel like we're almost talking about completely different things >_>

Yes, the main gripe people have about excess carbon emissions is the greenhouse effect. But the truth is that we've already pushed the planet past its breaking point. There's an enormous shelf of ice that is sliding off of Antarctica right now. In another couple centuries, it'll have completely slipped into the oceans, and by then will have raised sea levels around the world by approximately 4 feet. Scientists have already concluded that stopping this process at this point is impossible.

It would be real nice if we could collectively reduce our carbon emissions, but I don't think that it's a good idea to do so by increasing the risk of radiation polution! We've already capsized the climate boat, let's not set the floating wreckage on fire as well, OK?

Uh, because it's expensive. And then capitalism. And hence the rest.

Pretty much government policy will decide how large scale power generation is done. Like I said, people do things on their own small scale (solar panels are becoming more and more common to generate a bit of extra power or for heating …), but otherwise it's down to government policy. France is pretty comfortably generating over three quarters of its power from fission, because they got behind nuclear power and put money into it.

Yeah, France is pretty awesome about their alternative energy policies. That's where ITER is being built, by the way. Doesn't change the fact that they are taking huge risks by using fission energy.

Remember that we have policies in place to protect us from nuclear waste. If those weren't there, well then yeah fission power plants would be wicked cheap because you could literally just pour all of your radioactive shit into the nearest river. Luckily, we've got big brother looking out for us, making sure that companies who build nuclear power plants are doing so in a safe and conscientious manner.

But even with all of these safe guards in place, you've still got examples like Fukushima. I thought it was funny that your reasoning for why it should be ignored was "they didn't even have all of their safety measures in place". If anything, I think this makes it a perfect example for why we shouldn't trust (greedy, selfish, money grubbing) people with fissile materials.

The probability of such an accident occurring is really, really low though. As I'm sure you know, there are great safety measures in place in every fission plant …

It's not the probability of an accident that concerns me. It's the inevitable likelihood of one, given enough time, no matter what probability. If we try to make fission power, then fission accidents are going to happen, period. Even if one accident occurs every 100 years, that's bad news because each accident creates waste that won't go away for THOUSANDS of years!

I'm really not sure how else to explain this. Does my perspective make a little more sense, now?

In the same sense it was "in the bag" fifty years ago. It doesn't mean much … fusion's still ages away, most probably (as you more or less said yourself). More than a plant life cycle or two. So it doesn't really impact decisions about what we should use today.

Well, if you asked physicists 50 years ago, they would have told you that there is a lot of physics research that still needs to be done regarding fusion power. Today, they laugh and say it's "just an engineering problem". Take what you will from that, but I can promise you that we are a lot closer to real fusion power today than we were 50 years ago.

All I'm saying is that we should probably do our best to refrain from fission power production for as long as we are unable to completely mitigate the risk of a meltdown and safely manage the hazards of random radioactive byproducts. Fusion power will fix both of these problems and will ultimately be the best fuel burning energy scheme we can use for the future, even if that future is still a few decades away. In the meantime, let's not screw up our situation any more than we already have with even more (inevitable) fission power accidents.

[Dryish]

I'd much rather die of problems related to a heightened amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than of problems related to an unnaturally high dosage of radiation. Just saying.

[benjamminbrown]

@Dryish:

I'd much rather die of problems related to a heightened amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than of problems related to an unnaturally high dosage of radiation. Just saying.

With any luck, we'll all hopefully survive both.

Pandemics, though. Those'll probably kill us all in the end.

[Taggerung]

Nuclear power isn't as dangerous or risky as you're making it sound.

Climate change is reversible. The loss of an arctic shelf centuries from now is regrettable but we have no idea what the state of the planet or technology will be at that point.

CO2 has it's direct cost as well. Oil spills are a low hanging fruit for this argument that have already caused FAR more damage to the environment than all the nuclear plant disasters combined.

And I don't know the circles you're talking about we're are decades away from making fission viable. That's based on the math and the materials we have at our disposal. Yes it's an engineering problem. No that doesn't make it any easier to solve.

Your concerns don't make sense based on what we currently know about and how we deal with both sources of energy.

[benjamminbrown]

@Taggerung:

Nuclear power isn't as dangerous or risky as you're making it sound.

Maybe I'm being a little fatalistic in the way that I describe the dangers of fission power, but it's a lot more dangerous than you're making it sound.

Climate change is reversible. The loss of an arctic shelf centuries from now is regrettable but we have no idea what the state of the planet or technology will be at that point.

Perhaps global temperatures can be brought back to reasonable levels. But what will reverse global warming is the rest of the environment, not us. When we finally significantly cut our carbon emissions, the rest of nature will play catch up and bring us back to equilibrium. In the meantime, climate change is happening and will continue to happen, and it is going to change the world's weather distribution for centuries, maybe millennia.

You and a couple others are trying to tell me that fusion is a long way off. Well, climate control (e.g. reliable reversal of our impact on the environment) is even further away, guys. We have definitely not got something as incredibly complicated as the Earth's climate figured out yet. No where near as close as we've figured out fusion, anyway.

CO2 has it's direct cost as well. Oil spills are a low hanging fruit for this argument that have already caused FAR more damage to the environment than all the nuclear plant disasters combined.

I think that you need to clarify exactly how you're defining "FAR more damage". Like I've already said, the byproducts of the hydrocarbon industry are all things that the environment has previously been exposed to in enormous quantities. Terrestrial life will naturally process the pollutants left behind by hydrocarbon accidents, even if these accidents are huge. In a hundred years or so, life may take on a different appearance in the aftermath of an oil spill, but life will return to the area.

Fission waste is a different story entirely. Fission byproducts really are random: Not only are they random radioactive isotopes, but they can be essentially any material that is lower than Uranium on the periodic table. At least hydrocarbons are just hydrocarbons. We're freakin' made out of those, so you're going to have a real hard time convincing me that they're as bad for the environment as radioactive waste.

And I don't know the circles you're talking about we're are decades away from making fission viable. That's based on the math and the materials we have at our disposal. Yes it's an engineering problem. No that doesn't make it any easier to solve.

Do you mean "making fusion viable"?

Do you have any experience with the circles that do fusion power research? I've actually been involved in some fusion research and have conversed with people who do it. There are definitely some skeptics in the bunch who think we'll never figure it out, but most really do think that it's going to happen, and relatively soon at that.

What exactly do you think that we have left to solve? If you have specific questions, I may be able to make you feel better about it all.

Just so you know, we've already made burning (self sustaining) fusion plasma in some experimental reactors that have lasted ten seconds or more. That might not sound very exciting, but believe me, it's an amazing feat. ITER is going to be like a bonfire compared to the little campfires that we've been working with, so get ready for exciting news when they finally start making plasma in that bad boy.

Your concerns don't make sense based on what we currently know about and how we deal with both sources of energy.

Don't they? What about what I've said so far is incorrect? If you'd like to have a detailed discussion regarding the issue, then I'm more than game.

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

brought back to reasonable levels. But what will reverse global warming is the rest of the environment, not us. When we finally significantly cut our carbon emissions, the rest of nature will play catch up and bring us back to equilibrium. In the meantime, climate change is happening and will continue to happen, and it is going to change the world's weather distribution for centuries, maybe millennia.

But you're basically against doing so!

You and a couple others are trying to tell me that fusion is a long way off. Well, climate control (e.g. reliable reversal of our impact on the environment) is even further away, guys. We have definitely not got something as incredibly complicated as the Earth's climate figured out yet. No where near as close as we've figured out fusion, anyway.

But the objective is totally different. Fusion is a long way off -> when it comes, surely everyone who can will use it, but we have real, practical decisions to make about how to supply our power until then. Power plants are reaching the ends of their lifetimes and need to be replaced by something … and that will happen for a number of cycles yet. You yourself threw out numbers like 50-100 years!

Climate change on the other hand, that's about stopping worsening our impact on the environment. Which we obviously can do over the medium term if anyone can be bothered. But then people like you are all "Nah, it would be great if we could, but we won't really, will we? So let's not."

I think that you need to clarify exactly how you're defining "FAR more damage". Like I've already said, the byproducts of the hydrocarbon industry are all things that the environment has previously been exposed to in enormous quantities. Terrestrial life will naturally process the pollutants left behind by hydrocarbon accidents, even if these accidents are huge. In a hundred years or so, life may take on a different appearance in the aftermath of an oil spill, but life will return to the area.

Fission waste is a different story entirely. Fission byproducts really are random: Not only are they random radioactive isotopes, but they can be essentially any material that is lower than Uranium on the periodic table. At least hydrocarbons are just hydrocarbons. We're freakin' made out of those, so you're going to have a real hard time convincing me that they're as bad for the environment as radioactive waste.

Well there's actually a fixed sequence which goes through certain elements and finishes somewhere right? But you're objection to fission power is more of a vague, hand-wavy fear of something weird, basically. "Oh, we have that in our bodies, it can't be bad." Which doesn't actually make sense. We have water in our bodies, but we drown … we have electricity in our bodies but lightning will kill us ... It's not a solid reason, and you're pretty well rejecting out of hand the impact of these things on this basis.
And it is not like fission by-products are thrown into the air or the rivers or something. People spend loads of money containing nuclear waste. As they should do …

[Taggerung]

@benjamminbrown:

Perhaps global temperatures can be brought back to reasonable levels. But what will reverse global warming is the rest of the environment, not us. When we finally significantly cut our carbon emissions, the rest of nature will play catch up and bring us back to equilibrium. In the meantime, climate change is happening and will continue to happen, and it is going to change the world's weather distribution for centuries, maybe millennia.

You and a couple others are trying to tell me that fusion is a long way off. Well, climate control (e.g. reliable reversal of our impact on the environment) is even further away, guys. We have definitely not got something as incredibly complicated as the Earth's climate figured out yet. No where near as close as we've figured out fusion, anyway.

You don't know what will reverse global warming anymore than you can give me a solid timeline for when fusion becomes viable. The point is it's not a sunken ship and the damage is not irreparable. The first step though is reducing carbon emissions.

@benjamminbrown:

I think that you need to clarify exactly how you're defining "FAR more damage". Like I've already said, the byproducts of the hydrocarbon industry are all things that the environment has previously been exposed to in enormous quantities. Terrestrial life will naturally process the pollutants left behind by hydrocarbon accidents, even if these accidents are huge. In a hundred years or so, life may take on a different appearance in the aftermath of an oil spill, but life will return to the area.

Fission waste is a different story entirely. Fission byproducts really are random: Not only are they random radioactive isotopes, but they can be essentially any material that is lower than Uranium on the periodic table. At least hydrocarbons are just hydrocarbons. We're freakin' made out of those, so you're going to have a real hard time convincing me that they're as bad for the environment as radioactive waste.

Why is it OK for life to die via carbon because it will just come back in a different form but it's not OK for life to die via radiation which life on this planet as also withstood and come back from. Most life on the planet can withstand more radiation than mammals. We have life on this planet that can survive radiation far worse than anything we can make here. I don't see the point you're trying to make with this argument or what you're trying to argue here and bring up with that we're carbon based life is practically a strawman type argument. That's how useless and distracting it is.

Carbon is here and now and it's noticeable damage is everywhere. When the temperature of the sea rises and it's ecosystem starts to break down which is already happening, that sets off a chain reaction that will eventually end with most current life in the sea dying off. That's not even taking into account the extra damage done by oil spills, constant pollution, over fishing. The whole planet works like this. Chernobyl is already recovering and it didn't take thousands of years. Three Mile was unfortunate but it was widely blown out of proportion. Fukushima is probably the worst disaster and that's not the fault of the method but how the Japanese built and regulated the plant and how they tried to cover things up afterwards. Nuclear power and waste does not pose a threat to the stability of the world. The randomness of the waste is well known. Well documented. Well studied. It is not a mystery what we are dealing with. There are safe ways to handling this material and they are used much more than you seem to be giving credit for.

@benjamminbrown:

Do you mean "making fusion viable"?

Do you have any experience with the circles that do fusion power research? I've actually been involved in some fusion research and have conversed with people who do it. There are definitely some skeptics in the bunch who think we'll never figure it out, but most really do think that it's going to happen, and relatively soon at that.

What exactly do you think that we have left to solve? If you have specific questions, I may be able to make you feel better about it all.

Just so you know, we've already made burning (self sustaining) fusion plasma in some experimental reactors that have lasted ten seconds or more. That might not sound very exciting, but believe me, it's an amazing feat. ITER is going to be like a bonfire compared to the little campfires that we've been working with, so get ready for exciting news when they finally start making plasma in that bad boy.

This is exactly what I mean by viable. I haven't seen research or any experimental data currently available that shows the energy needed to create net positive fusion outweighing the the cost, energy, and total resources of the operation that created it. No where near close. "Just an engineering problem" is an understatement. It's the difference between the Wright Brothers plane and a modern jet engine. It's not a matter of do we know how to do it. It's can we reproduce the process on a scale that we can actually use for something. I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

[benjamminbrown]

You two are either (1) not reading what I'm writing or (2) having a lot of trouble understanding what we're talking about.

@Supernova122:

But you're basically against doing so!

No, I'm not. I said that it would be a bad idea to reduce carbon emissions by increasing the risk of radioactive pollution.

Of course we need to reduce our carbon emissions. I'm just saying that replacing carbon plants with fission ones is probably not the wisest move, considering the drawbacks which I've already enumerated plenty of times.

But the objective is totally different. Fusion is a long way off -> when it comes, surely everyone who can will use it, but we have real, practical decisions to make about how to supply our power until then. Power plants are reaching the ends of their lifetimes and need to be replaced by something … and that will happen for a number of cycles yet. You yourself threw out numbers like 50-100 years!

Climate change on the other hand, that's about stopping worsening our impact on the environment. Which we obviously can do over the medium term if anyone can be bothered. But then people like you are all "Nah, it would be great if we could, but we won't really, will we? So let's not."

I'm definitely not saying that we shouldn't try to lessen our impact on the environment. I'm saying that we should ACTUALLY LESSEN our impact, not change our impact to something possibly even more dangerous and life threatening. This means that we need to be a little intelligent about exactly what we are doing to the environment and how we change our energy sources, which requires discussing the actual byproducts of both sources of power (carbon and nuclear).

Well there's actually a fixed sequence which goes through certain elements and finishes somewhere right?

Yeah, a sequence that goes (more or less randomly) through almost every element in the table and a lot of their isotopes. What's your point?

But you're objection to fission power is more of a vague, hand-wavy fear of something weird, basically. "Oh, we have that in our bodies, it can't be bad." Which doesn't actually make sense. We have water in our bodies, but we drown … we have electricity in our bodies but lightning will kill us ... It's not a solid reason, and you're pretty well rejecting out of hand the impact of these things on this basis.

And it is not like fission by-products are thrown into the air or the rivers or something. People spend loads of money containing nuclear waste. As they should do ...

I'm being hand-wavy because that's all that's necessary to prove my point. But I can get into the numbers more if that's really what you all want from me.

Please do go on and tell me about how dangerous H2O is for the environment. How much it's poisoning our biomes and killing off other species. Also lightning, there's no way that life could survive with that sort of thing happening in the environment, now, is there?

You're completely missing my point about the dangers of fission byproducts if you don't understand my sarcasm, here.

And it totally IS like fission byproducts are thrown into the air, which is exactly the point I'm making with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and a lot of other accidents that I won't be troubled to look up for you. Please read what I'm writing, Supernova…

Even the waste that is disposed of "properly" is still just being buried in glass beads somewhere where it will sit for a good several thousand years before it becomes just another bunch of random rare earth metals. In the meantime, it's sitting there, irradiating our soil and all that jazz.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Taggerung:

You don't know what will reverse global warming anymore than you can give me a solid timeline for when fusion becomes viable. The point is it's not a sunken ship and the damage is not irreparable. The first step though is reducing carbon emissions.

I think I've got a better grasp on both of these concepts than you, but (you're right) that still doesn't make me a fortune teller.

Yes, the first step to fixing the climate is reducing carbon emissions. You think that I'm arguing against this?

Why is it OK for life to die via carbon because it will just come back in a different form but it's not OK for life to die via radiation which life on this planet as also withstood and come back from. Most life on the planet can withstand more radiation than mammals. We have life on this planet that can survive radiation far worse than anything we can make here. I don't see the point you're trying to make with this argument or what you're trying to argue here and bring up with that we're carbon based life is practically a strawman type argument. That's how useless and distracting it is.

It's really not distracting at all, in fact it very clearly illustrates the point that I'm trying to make. If we were composed almost entirely of radioactive substances, if all life on the planet naturally metabolized U-235, then maybe I wouldn't be beating the "fission is bad" drum so hard. But we aren't. And we can't. And so I beat on.

Who said that it's "OK" for any life to be dying right now? I think that we have a horrible impact on the planet and almost all other forms of life around us, but that has no bearing on this argument about whether it's more harmful for things to breathe CO2 or, say, radioactive Argon.

Carbon is here and now and it's noticeable damage is everywhere. When the temperature of the sea rises and it's ecosystem starts to break down which is already happening, that sets off a chain reaction that will eventually end with most current life in the sea dying off. That's not even taking into account the extra damage done by oil spills, constant pollution, over fishing. The whole planet works like this. Chernobyl is already recovering and it didn't take thousands of years. Three Mile was unfortunate but it was widely blown out of proportion. Fukushima is probably the worst disaster and that's not the fault of the method but how the Japanese built and regulated the plant and how they tried to cover things up afterwards. Nuclear power and waste does not pose a threat to the stability of the world. The randomness of the waste is well known. Well documented. Well studied. It is not a mystery what we are dealing with. There are safe ways to handling this material and they are used much more than you seem to be giving credit for.

It most definitely will take thousands of years before Chernobyl is back to the state that it was in before the meltdown. You're just wrong on this one, guy. There're still people in Belarus who are getting thyroid cancer from the radiation left behind by the Chernobyl meltdown. How 'bout you go tell them to quit worrying so much about these totally well understood fission byproducts of yours.

How about you do some research and actually tell me what these "safe" disposal methods are. I'll bet you anything that they don't stop the waste from being radioactive and continuing to pollute the environment (even from behind the wall of a glass bead).

This is exactly what I mean by viable. I haven't seen research or any experimental data currently available that shows the energy needed to create net positive fusion outweighing the the cost, energy, and total resources of the operation that created it. No where near close. "Just an engineering problem" is an understatement. It's the difference between the Wright Brothers plane and a modern jet engine. It's not a matter of do we know how to do it. It's can we reproduce the process on a scale that we can actually use for something. I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

I won't blame you for not seeing promising fusion research, yet. But I'm pretty surprised that you haven't clicked on some of the links I've already provided. We're already reaching breakeven efficiency, and you think that we're still that far off from viable fusion power? I've actually been involved in the field, and have told you about how the research is coming along. But you don't seem to trust me, so…?

And, yes, we can reproduce the process on a scale that will provide reliable power. That's what ITER is. Why don't you wait and complain once that's built and isn't performing at the level I've said it will.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

The reason I keep saying that we're only decades away from fusion power is because that's the projected timeline of ITER, and I'm convinced that ITER is going to be successful. I'd be happy to talk to you all about why I feel this way, but somehow I get the feeling that you won't believe what I have to say, anyway.

rolls eyes

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

No, I'm not. I said that it would be a bad idea to reduce carbon emissions by increasing the risk of radioactive pollution.

Of course we need to reduce our carbon emissions. I'm just saying that replacing carbon plants with fission ones is probably not the wisest move, considering the drawbacks which I've already enumerated plenty of times.

I'm definitely not saying that we shouldn't try to lessen our impact on the environment. I'm saying that we should ACTUALLY LESSEN our impact, not change our impact to something possibly even more dangerous and life threatening. This means that we need to be a little intelligent about exactly what we are doing to the environment and how we change our energy sources, which requires discussing the actual byproducts of both sources of power (carbon and nuclear).

And it totally IS like fission byproducts are thrown into the air, which is exactly the point I'm making with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and a lot of other accidents that I won't be troubled to look up for you. Please read what I'm writing, Supernova…

Even the waste that is disposed of "properly" is still just being buried in glass beads somewhere where it will sit for a good several thousand years before it becomes just another bunch of random rare earth metals. In the meantime, it's sitting there, irradiating our soil and all that jazz.

Yes, in a nuclear catastrophe, there will be a fallout which causes some environmental damage (a fair bit in Fukushima … a hell of a lot in Chernobyl) but in the routine operation of a fission plant, it isn't. That's a direct contrast to burning fossil fuels ... Fission's a lot more containable an environmental impact (even if it is over a much greater timescale) than fossil fuels. You are not being even remotely convincing that the balance of priorities should make us reject fission power.

Yeah, a sequence that goes (more or less randomly) through almost every element in the table and a lot of their isotopes. What's your point?

I wasn't making one. Hence the small print. I was just curious … if it is a fixed sequence, the sequence cannot be random (by definition). And it doesn't go through light elements, right?

You two are either (1) not reading what I'm writing or (2) having a lot of trouble understanding what we're talking about.

I'm being hand-wavy because that's all that's necessary to prove my point. But I can get into the numbers more if that's really what you all want from me.

Please do go on and tell me about how dangerous H2O is for the environment. How much it's poisoning our biomes and killing off other species. Also lightning, there's no way that life could survive with that sort of thing happening in the environment, now, is there?

You're completely missing my point about the dangers of fission byproducts if you don't understand my sarcasm, here.

I think I've got a better grasp on both of these concepts than you, but (you're right) that still doesn't make me a fortune teller.

I won't blame you for not seeing promising fusion research, yet. But I'm pretty surprised that you haven't clicked on some of the links I've already provided. We're already reaching breakeven efficiency, and you think that we're still that far off from viable fusion power? I've actually been involved in the field, and have told you about how the research is coming along. But you don't seem to trust me, so…?

And, yes, we can reproduce the process on a scale that will provide reliable power. That's what ITER is. Why don't you wait and complain once that's built and isn't performing at the level I've said it will.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

The reason I keep saying that we're only decades away from fusion power is because that's the projected timeline of ITER, and I'm convinced that ITER is going to be successful. I'd be happy to talk to you all about why I feel this way, but somehow I get the feeling that you won't believe what I have to say, anyway.

rolls eyes

You're very good at affecting the lofty, super-knowledgeable guy wearily putting up with his more ignorant lessers, but you're points are mostly meandering, repetitive and unhelpfully close to missing the point.

[benjamminbrown]

@Supernova122:

Yes, in a nuclear catastrophe, there will be a fallout which causes some environmental damage (a fair bit in Fukushima … a hell of a lot in Chernobyl) but in the routine operation of a fission plant, it isn't. That's a direct contrast to burning fossil fuels ... Fission's a lot more containable an environmental impact (even if it is over a much greater timescale) than fossil fuels. You are not being even remotely convincing that the balance of priorities should make us reject fission power.

Are you sure you understand that fission plants produce waste, just like carbon plants? Even in the event that no fission power catastrophe will ever happen again (lol, seriously, you think this is a possibility?), you're STILL producing radioactive waste that must be disposed of somehow. Tell me again why you think it's a good idea to bury radioactive waste that will last thousands of years before turning into various other dangerous pollutants, albeit no longer radioactive.

edit: Try your best to contain radioactive waste, but you're never going to protect the environment from its radiation. Think about the steady neutron, alpha and beta particle, x-ray, and gamma ray emission that we will have to deal with from these things. This radiation will last effectively forever (probably longer than even humanity will) compared to the time scales of the climate change we are currently experiencing. How exactly do you suggest we "contain" this? I promise you that we are not doing well enough of a job with it already, and it would be silly for us to think that we can just keep burying this stuff all over the place and never run out of room to bury it in.

I wasn't making one. Hence the small print. I was just curious … if it is a fixed sequence, the sequence cannot be random (by definition). And it doesn't go through light elements, right?

You need a refresher on quantum mechanics. Just because there are set, known decay paths for a given radioactive element doesn't mean that it follows the same path every time. Quantum behavior is by definition random. There is nothing more random than stuff happening on the quantum level. Like fission.

And, no, light elements can also be made (simplest example: alpha particle), though they are much rarer. Light elements would be more attractive than heavy metals, though, which is what you usually end up getting.

You're very good at affecting the lofty, super-knowledgeable guy wearily putting up with his more ignorant lessers, but you're points are mostly meandering, repetitive and unhelpfully close to missing the point.

Forgive me for getting a little annoyed that you've completely misread and misrepresented a lot of what I've written so far. I know that I have a problem of getting a little lofty when I get grumpy, so perhaps I will just take a chill pill. But… since I was the one who started the whole discourse, I'm really confused about why you think I'm missing the main point.

I do suggest that you learn a little more about this stuff, though, before you just write off what I've been saying.

We all want to make the world a better place, but it's a little difficult to get everyone to agree about how it should be done.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

Supernova, how can you call my points mostly meandering when I've addressed each of your questions and comments directly? You're the one who's been selectively quoting and avoiding some of the issues that I've brought up. Who's missing the point, here?

Dem's fightin' words, but really, I don't want an argument. I'll try my best to drop the topic here unless I get any further replies about it.

[Taggerung]

ITER won't be running for at least a decade. That's if it doesn't get pushed back which based on all previous large scale physics projects will likely happen. And that's assuming that everything works which is not a 100%. This reactor is still very much experimental. I would say you're looking at 20+ years which is a long time to wait.

Your reaction to fission waste is so laced with hyperbole it's not even worth arguing against.

Your argument on carbon life is just nonsense. I still don't know what you're trying to say. Carbon emissions will kill us and a large portion of life on the planet regardless of whether we're carbon based life forms or not. That has no bearing on the argument. It's like saying the the sea level won't rise because ice water can transition into ice.

20 years from now at the rate we're going we will have pumped several hundred billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the air and the ocean. You have so far been unsuccessful in attempting to convince me that that is much more preferable than creating more nuclear power planets whose waste we can and have been properly storing for decades all over the world without detriment to the environment.

[benjamminbrown]

Please, Taggerung, what hyperbole? Please tell me what you think is inaccurate in what I've said so far about fission. I really would love to discuss it. Mostly because I'm extremely sure that I know what I'm talking about.

What don't you get about this statement: Radioactive stuff is more hazardous to living things than hydrocarbon oxidation products. Because that's what I'm trying to say with my carbon based life argument. Yes, we've got the climate to consider as well, and that's a big scary thing that is going pretty wildly out of control at the moment. But I really think that the best way for us to deal with our current level of carbon emissions is to increase the efficiency of our existing fossil fuel devices. We will definitely need to switch to alternative energy eventually, but I'm surprised that you seem to think that such a switch will be possible in, what, under twenty years???

In twenty years, just based on social inertia, we'll have probably put about as much carbon into the atmosphere as we have over the last 20-50 years. However, this change to the environment is actually pretty slight when you consider the existing concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere. But, ultimately, even if we start switching to alternative energy sources all willy-nilly over the next couple decades, we're not going to be able to stop or even really significantly slow our consumption of fossil fuels. Think of all the developing nations that can't afford alternative energy. They're going to keep on burning fossil fuels and there's really nothing that you can do or say about it.

That said, how much do you think the relative concentrations of radioactive waste in the atmosphere have changed in the last 20 years, my friend?

There's evidence that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were on the rise long before people could have started to significantly contribute to it. We don't know exactly how much of what we are seeing right now is directly our fault, how much is indirectly our fault, and how much is just part of the Earth's natural climate cycles. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but that's all they really are; guesses.

But I can guarantee you that whatever increase we have seen in general radioactivity levels everywhere is completely and totally the fault of humans. We are the only thing creating more of that stuff on the surface of the earth, and we really need to stop. Savvy?

P.S. I know all about ITER, I'm the one who brought it up, remember? I'm the guy who's done fusion research, remember? Why are you trying to teach me about its construction timeline and likelihood of success?

[Taggerung]

Radioactive waste is not everywhere. CO2 and the environmental devastation caused by it, it's production, and it's transportation is literally everywhere. Yes, if you put a person near radioactive material it will cause more harm than putting them near a vat of oil but that is not the argument. That radioactive waste is more harmful to some living things is not the argument. Trying to make that the argument is the strawman because realistically CO2 damage is omnipresent on the planet whereas radio waste damage is extremely contained to less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the earths surface. The increase in radio active materials in the planets atmosphere has everything to with the 2000+ nuclear bombs that have been detonated and nothing to do with nuclear waste.

The arguments against human beings responsibility for climate change are nothing compared to the massive amount of data we have supporting it. We're pumping CO2 into the environment on a level not seen in millions of years. This isn't debatable. This is a fact. This climate change is not natural. Anyone who thinks otherwise in the same boat as the scientist who were saying cigarettes don't cause cancer.

If you want to talk about hyperbole you can discuss the disasters that have occurred during nuclear waste disposal and we can weigh that damage versus the damage caused by coal waste, oil spills, and methane pollution.

Lastly how can can put fusion power on such a high pedestal as our savior but then start talking about how developing nations can't afford alternative energy so there's no point in putting in putting money into it because they're going to keep burning fossil fuels. You might as well say that there's no point to put money into fusion because it's not going to stop poorer nations from continuing to destroy the environment.

There is no part of your argument that isn't faulty and I'm not going to waste any more time on someone who is denying man made climate change. That is beyond ridiculous.

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

Are you sure you understand that fission plants produce waste, just like carbon plants?

Are you sure you understand the relative impacts of these forms of pollution?
I shall dispense with the subtext and tell you that I think you don't.

Tell me again why you think it's a good idea to bury radioactive waste that will last thousands of years before turning into various other dangerous pollutants, albeit no longer radioactive.

Because it would be dumb not to contain it.

edit: Try your best to contain radioactive waste, but you're never going to protect the environment from its radiation. Think about the steady neutron, alpha and beta particle, x-ray, and gamma ray emission that we will have to deal with from these things. This radiation will last effectively forever (probably longer than even humanity will) compared to the time scales of the climate change we are currently experiencing. How exactly do you suggest we "contain" this? I promise you that we are not doing well enough of a job with it already, and it would be silly for us to think that we can just keep burying this stuff all over the place and never run out of room to bury it in.

Certainly for general ionising radiation, fission by-products, nuclear disasters (even Chernobyl) and weapon tests together pale in comparison to natural sources, particularly naturally occurring radon …

In terms of impact on humans exclusively, we get on average far more radiation from X-rays (as in for imaging purposes) than we do from the above mentioned fission sources.

Nobody's going to argue fission's a great eternal solution, especially with the way we deal with nuclear waste now, but it is not really tenable to argue against fission power in the medium term based on the impact of fission waste products.

Also, I'm definitely going to call bullshit on the radiation "effectively lasting forever." It will become negligible well before the doom of humanity. Unless you're expecting an apocalypse pretty soon.

> What don't you get about this statement: Radioactive stuff is more hazardous to living things than hydrocarbon oxidation products. Because that's what I'm trying to say with my carbon based life argument.
This is such a non-point though. Nobody here (or anywhere??) is arguing to the contrary.

I say Problem X is better than Problem Y.

You say Problem X is worse than Problem Z.

Do you now see what I mean about you missing the point?

[benjamminbrown]

I love you Tag, but you don't know what you're talking about.

First off, radioactive waste is more harmful to all living things. I can't believe that I actually have to defend this statement, so I won't anymore.

Second, when did I deny our impact on the climate? All I said was that we cannot be sure of just how much of an impact we've had on carbon levels in the atmosphere. I personally do think that we're contributing significantly, but I'm not going to say that we're the only reason the carbon levels are fluctuating. Maybe you should go back to the graph I posted on the previous page (copypasta'd for your convenience):

Please tell me that I'm not the only one who notices just how much those blue dots and error bars are fluctuating. Now, for comparison, let's look at just the last few hundred thousand years:

Notice how the last one is only on a scale of like 400 parts per million, and how the first one is on a scale of 8000 parts per million? What does this tell you? It tells me that the Earth has seen a heck of a lot of carbon in its atmosphere before, and that whatever we're doing to the planet right now might not be ideal, but it's a lot better than risking the increased radiation of our children and their children's children's children's children's children.

Get the picture?

Radioactive waste isn't widespread? What do you see here?

Those are the ground level Cesium concentrations almost a month after the Fukushima incident.

And this shows the total cesium deposition in that area over a similar time span.

That's Fukushima's aftermath, and that's just what's in the atmosphere.

Here's something to show how the wreckage in the water is getting carried around the Pacific:

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there haven't been a whole lot of nuclear bombs going off lately. Instead, we've been building lots of fission power plants, all ripe for the next stupid human error or environmental disaster to cause the next big fission accident. And all that Uranium that we're burning, well, it's making more and more radioactive waste that we're "safely" disposing of underground. Well, guys, why don't you tell me what's going to happen when all of these underground nuclear waste dumps start leeching into the surrounding water supply? When they start elevating the background radiation levels in the very soil in which we are planting our food? If you think that this sort of thing isn't an inevitability in the long run, then you're deluding yourself.

I'm not talking about fission with any hyperboles, Tag. You're the one who said that I was, so I'd like for you to please find where I was making some sort of exaggerated statement about the dangers of fission. Everything that I've said so far is true as far as I'm aware, and I've learned a whole lot about the subject. Believe me, I'm still paying for the student loans.

Anyway, it's stupid to say that we should stop investing in alternative energy because it's not going to stop the developing nations from using fossil fuels in the meantime. I never said that, and it's stupid for you to assume that that's what I meant. What I meant is that there's nothing that you or I can do or say in this moment or in the next couple decades that is really going to have any major impact on how humans are influencing the environment or producing our energy. Sure, we should keep researching what we can, figuring out as much as possible about new energy sources, but we shouldn't think that any drastic changes in our environmental/energy policies are going to occur any time soon.

What's going to drive energy policy change is when the next big thing comes along, sort of like when coal power and steam engines were discovered. That's what fusion is going to be like, and that's why I keep harping on and on about it's benefits.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Supernova122:

Are you sure you understand the relative impacts of these forms of pollution?
I shall dispense with the subtext and tell you that I think you don't.

And I'll go ahead and say that you're full of horse shit because this is precisely what I've been studying for the last fucking decade.

Because it would be dumb not to contain it.

Very funny, but you know that's not what I was asking, right? Why do you think that it's better to irradiate the planet than to do what we can to find other ways to diminish carbon emissions? That's what I'm asking you.

You're saying that we are already doing a great job of containing our nuclear waste. I've pointed out to you over and over again how that's just a blatant fallacy. Tell me why you think that what we are doing right now is sufficient. Please.

Certainly for general ionising radiation, fission by-products, nuclear disasters (even Chernobyl) and weapon tests together pale in comparison to natural sources, particularly naturally occurring radon …

In terms of impact on humans exclusively, we get on average far more radiation from X-rays (as in for imaging purposes) than we do from the above mentioned fission sources.

Nobody's going to argue fission's a great eternal solution, especially with the way we deal with nuclear waste now, but it is not really tenable to argue against fission power in the medium term based on the impact of fission waste products.

Also, I'm definitely going to call bullshit on the radiation "effectively lasting forever." It will become negligible well before the doom of humanity. Unless you're expecting an apocalypse pretty soon.

Yes, there are lots of sources of radiation that we already have to contend with, already plaguing the species with more cancer than we'd ever want to have to manage. Now, you're telling me that you think it's a good idea to exacerbate that problem?

I'm going to assume that you know what a half-life is. But, did you know that there are lots of fission byproducts that have half lives over a quarter million years long? Do you understand that that's a lot longer than the human race has even existed?

Maybe if you understand all of that, then you'll begin to understand why I think our fission waste is likely to outlast even us.

This is such a non-point though. Nobody here (or anywhere??) is arguing to the contrary.

I say Problem X is better than Problem Y.

You say Problem X is worse than Problem Z.

Do you now see what I mean about you missing the point?

You say that irradiation of the planet by nuclear waste and the risk of fission power plant meltdowns is a better alternative than continuing to burn fossil fuels in the way that we have been. So what? Making more fission power plants is not going to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels any time soon. You think that developing nations are going to actually try to make fission power plants and other alternative energy sources?

I'm way more comfortable with them building more coal plants and getting it right than taking their chances with fission power plants and inevitably getting it really wrong. We've all seen just what can happen when a rushed, developing nation tries to build something that's a little beyond their understanding/ability (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.).

[Dryish]

Keep it civil, you three. This is the best discussion on the particular topic I've seen in a long, long time anywhere, so don't bog it down by throwing in too many personal affronts. It'd be a shame to lose it to discourse problems.

[benjamminbrown]

Well, damn, Dryish. And I was just starting to build up a nice, healthy temper.

sigh OK.

[Taggerung]

You can't post pictures like that and ignore the context of them. If the only thing you're gleaning from that is that there has been a lot of carbon on the planet before then you're not looking at the whole picture. Those images tell a story much larger than the one you're trying to narrow it down to and it ignores the state and changes that the planet was going through during those time periods. You can't just go "See, there's been lots of carbon all the time no big deal" That's not the story of those pictures. You can stop posting them because you clearly don't know what the peaks and valleys mean. If you did you wouldn't be posting them to support your argument. I don't have the time or energy to discuss the geological and ecological history of the planet but that's the story of those pictures and they have literally fuck all to do with the last bit of both graphs which is the part that matters.

Fukushima is not radioactive waste. It was a nuclear meltdown caused by shitty engineering. You can't argue that we don't know how to deal with fission power waste products by citing Fukushima because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Not only that but that picture you posted is lovely if you're ignorant and you don't know the levels of the radiation that are actually being represented. It's a great scare tactic. Yes if every nuclear plant on the planet melted down it would be awful but that's not going to happen. Fukushima is not the fate of all nuclear energy, it's an isolated incident. What it is is a case for raising the standards of japanese nuclear power plants, not getting rid of all of them like they're doing. The testimony from the engineers who built that plant and others have shown that this was a problem that started with politics. Stop trying to use it as a case for all plants current and ever after.

And how can you go from talking about radiation damage that will last forever but completely ignore it when it comes to the 2000+ bombs that have literally gone off in our atmosphere and instead attribute all that increase in radiation to power plants. That's absurd.That makes no physical or mathematical sense. It's false. It's untrue. It's a lie. It's calling a square a triangle.

For all your talk about the ground and water contamination that's heading our way how much contamination has actually been found in anywhere that was caused by the storage of nuclear waste. You say it's inevitable but it hasn't happened and it's not going to happen. We know how to deal with this stuff. The same science that's going to make your fusion power possible is the science that tells us how to safely manage this material.

You like fusion and fusion will be great if we get there. We get it. But that's the only thing you've got right this entire time.

[Ubiq]

Chernobyl and Fukushima are pretty bad examples where arguing that nuclear power is unsafe is concerned.

The former was pretty much a disaster from the get-go thanks to Soviet era gross incompetence; the reactor design was bad and horrendously unsafe, they knew it was bad, and they pressed on with it anyway, they skimped on safety protocol, and didn't postpone the safety test that caused the explosion when they knew that the system wasn't running the way it was supposed to. After that, they didn't evacuate people like they should have in Pripyat and didn't even announce it for several days after the explosion.

Fukushima was basically a testimony to TEPCO incompetence and corruption since they set up a commission to study the possibility of just such an event as the tsunami that damaged the facility several years before and promptly ignored that commission's recommendations since it would cost more than they wanted to spend.

[Outerspec]

I think Benjamin's point is that accidents can happen whether they be human error or natural and the risks are too great, but that point can be argued against anything. Including fusion power?

Edit: Nvm, looked up fusion and it's just about perfect in every way. It's a matter of getting the technology.

[benjamminbrown]

@Taggerung:

You can't post pictures like that and ignore the context of them. If the only thing you're gleaning from that is that there has been a lot of carbon on the planet before then you're not looking at the whole picture. Those images tell a story much larger than the one you're trying to narrow it down to and it ignores the state and changes that the planet was going through during those time periods. You can't just go "See, there's been lots of carbon all the time no big deal" That's not the story of those pictures. You can stop posting them because you clearly don't know what the peaks and valleys mean. If you did you wouldn't be posting them to support your argument. I don't have the time or energy to discuss the geological and ecological history of the planet but that's the story of those pictures and they have literally fuck all to do with the last bit of both graphs which is the part that matters.

What context am I ignoring, Tag? I know exactly what the graphs that I've posted mean, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I don't think that it would be helpful for us to go into a long winded discussion about what all the sources for carbon fluctuations in the atmosphere are. What's important, here, is that carbon is extremely prevalent on Earth, and basically always has been. Let's not concern ourselves too, too much with how well the environment is going to bounce back from this latest human screw up called the industrial revolution, is all I'm saying. The environment can take it. Clearly.

It's beside the point, though, since it won't matter if we developed nations start switching to all fission, anyway. As I've said, developing nations are definitely going to be building mostly coal power plants, and they're going to keep our carbon emissions up for quite a while now. Do you think that there really is any denying this?

Fukushima is not radioactive waste.

Alright, if there's anything that you've said that makes you really look like you don't know what you're talking about, it's this. What do you think radioactive waste actually is, Tag? I'm interested.

It was a nuclear meltdown caused by shitty engineering. You can't argue that we don't know how to deal with fission power waste products by citing Fukushima because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Not only that but that picture you posted is lovely if you're ignorant and you don't know the levels of the radiation that are actually being represented. It's a great scare tactic. Yes if every nuclear plant on the planet melted down it would be awful but that's not going to happen. Fukushima is not the fate of all nuclear energy, it's an isolated incident. What it is is a casing for raising the standards of japanese nuclear power plants, not getting rid of all of them like they're doing. The testimony from the engineers who built that plant and others have shown that this was a problem that started with politics. Stop trying to use it as a case for all plants current and ever after.

And now you're making Supernova's same mistake, telling me that we shouldn't count Fukushima as a reason people can't be trusted with fission energy.

Don't you know that the same exact fission byproducts are made during a meltdown as are made during normal operation? They're just made in extremely higher quantities at a much faster rate. It's called a meltdown because the fission process is proceeding so quickly that it even melts the Uranium bars that you're fueling it with…

About the plot: You were saying that fission waste isn't widespread. I proved to you that it was. So what if they scaled the colors of the graph so that you could see just how widespread it is?

I'm not saying that every fission plant is bound to pull a Fukushima. What I'm saying is that certainly some of them are, so why are we even taking the risk in the first place? It really makes me sad to think you all believe that fission power accidents aren't ever going to happen again. Haven't we learned anything, people?

And how can you go from talking about radiation damage that will last forever but completely ignore it when it comes to the 2000+ bombs that have literally gone off in our atmosphere and instead attribute all that increase in radiation to power plants. That's absurd. It's beyond stupid.

I haven't attributed all of the planet's existing radiation levels to any one thing in particular, but I definitely have been implying that fission plants have contributed to the background radiation levels of the environment. And they have, it's undeniable. So what if most of the radiation that we currently get is from the cosmos, natural Earth elements, medical visits, etc.? It just doesn't make sense to take the risk of increasing those radiation levels. Not when we have other alternative energy sources that we should be investing in instead.

For all your talk about the ground and water contamination that's heading our way how much contamination has actually been found in anywhere that was caused by the storage of nuclear waste. You say it's inevitable but it hasn't happened and it's not going to happen. We know how to deal with this stuff. The same science that's going to make your fusion power possible is the science that tells us how to safely manage this material.

Wrong.

Fusion is possible because of our understanding of plasma physics in addition to nuclear physics. Fission is only about nuclear physics.

So, tell me, are you going to personally go around and make sure our fission waste dump sites are in tip top shape for the next 10 million years? Good luck with that. You know that they're going to get old, that the waste is going to start leeching out. That it's probably already started leeching out of a bunch of the old 20th century Soviet and American dump sites that the public doesn't even know about.

I'd really like for you to tell me just how you think we're going to keep our radioactive dump sites leak proof for hundreds of years, much less the millions that we'd really have to do it in order to be perfectly safe.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Ubiq:

Chernobyl and Fukushima are pretty bad examples where arguing that nuclear power is unsafe is concerned.

The former was pretty much a disaster from the get-go thanks to Soviet era gross incompetence; the reactor design was bad and horrendously unsafe, they knew it was bad, and they pressed on with it anyway, they skimped on safety protocol, and didn't postpone the safety test that caused the explosion when they knew that the system wasn't running the way it was supposed to. After that, they didn't evacuate people like they should have in Pripyat and didn't even announce it for several days after the explosion.

Fukushima was basically a testimony to TEPCO incompetence and corruption since they set up a commission to study the possibility of just such an event as the tsunami that damaged the facility several years before and promptly ignored that commission's recommendations since it would cost more than they wanted to spend.

See Outerspec's comment:

@Outerspec:

I think Benjamin's point is that accidents can happen whether they be human error or natural and the risks are too great, but that point can be argued against anything. Including fusion power?

Edit: Nvm, looked up fusion and it's just about perfect in every way. It's a matter of getting the technology.

Yes, thank you, Outerspec! This is precisely my point. HALLELUJAH

Please, let's just stop taking the friggin' risk, especially when it's not even going to help us that much! I say let's just quit building fission plants, dump all of that money into fusion research instead, and be done with the whole damned debate.

But that's just me.

[Blagtastic]

How about a bit of a compromise between us all? Fusion development could be a game changer in the coming years, but realistically, it will not replace all energy producing needs in the foreseeable future. At least not within half a century, do I see commercial fusion being a significant presence in the energy market.

Current fission plants are inefficient and produce disproportionately large amounts of wastes. These current pressured water plants do not meet the needs for the future either. Instead, the future in my opinion, will be a mixture of sources and not nearly as homogenized as today's current market.

Next generation fission, like molten salt reactors, pebble bed reactors, and some breeder reactors could alleviate multiple problems with current pressurized reactors and produce significantly less waste. Storage would be much easier with lesser amounts of waste and with reprocessing, a portion of current spent nuclear fuel from current could be consumed as well. These reactors could then help produce some of the tritium fuel for fusion reactors as well as the higher temperature molten salt reactors could then drive traditionally fossil fuel burning industrial processes like Born-Haber ammonia plants, lime cycle cement plants, and even coastal desalinization plants. As I said before, useful isotopes can be isolated from molten salt reactors for industrial sell off to help offset operating costs. Yes, waste is still produced, but I am confident that with proper precautions, the risks will not be nearly as horrible as you make them out to be.

Yes, more development needs to be done in both fields of fusion and fission. Yes, light water and pressured reactors are not the best of ideas, but you can thank that to the late Admiral Hyman Rickover who really plotted the course of reactor development during its developing years. That said, the US nuclear fleet has operated successful without incidence since its inception and implementation. Chernobyl was bad, but what do you expect from a reactor built without any containment structure. Fukishima was bad, but what do you expect when you build a reactor that was not designed to withstand high magnitude tsunamis and earthquakes in a highly geologically active region. Three Mile Island wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, but was mostly publicized due to a film by the name of "The China Syndrome" coming out about two weeks before accident further driving fear of nuclear accidents.

[wolfwood]

I had no idea that the future energies biz was so territorial

[Outerspec]

@benjamminbrown:

Yes, thank you, Outerspec! This is precisely my point. HALLELUJAH

Please, let's just stop taking the friggin' risk, especially when it's not even going to help us that much! I say let's just quit building fission plants, dump all of that money into fusion research instead, and be done with the whole damned debate.

But that's just me.

I agree that there are risks but I don't think we should just stop. While it is pretty evident fusion power would be excellent and preferable to fission, it is also evident that these fission plants are pretty much safe. No, you're right, they're not 100% safe but what is? This is ultimately the question of are the risks worth it? My answer to that is, I don't know, but there will be always be risks in everything we do no matter what the technology, so yeah. Some risks are greater than others but let's not be too hasty in not taking them altogether.

I know there's a difference between unnecessary risk and necessary risk, but I don't see fission as unnecessary. It provides energy, puts less carbons in the environment, and it is for the most part safe.

Like you, and like everyone else here I suspect. I do wish for commercialized fusion energy as fast as possible though.

[benjamminbrown]

@Blagtastic88:

How about a bit of a compromise between us all? Fusion development could be a game changer in the coming years, but realistically, it will not replace all energy producing needs in the foreseeable future. At least not within half a century, do I see commercial fusion being a significant presence in the energy market.

It's definitely at least several decades from being a really viable alternative, but we're getting there. I agree that it's not something that we should count on, at least not until it's completely figured out.

Current fission plants are inefficient and produce disproportionately large amounts of wastes. These current pressured water plants do not meet the needs for the future either. Instead, the future in my opinion, will be a mixture of sources and not nearly as homogenized as today's current market.

Next generation fission, like molten salt reactors, pebble bed reactors, and some breeder reactors could alleviate multiple problems with current pressurized reactors and produce significantly less waste. Storage would be much easier with lesser amounts of waste and with reprocessing, a portion of current spent nuclear fuel from current could be consumed as well. These reactors could then help produce some of the tritium fuel for fusion reactors as well as the higher temperature molten salt reactors could then drive traditionally fossil fuel burning industrial processes like Born-Haber ammonia plants, lime cycle cement plants, and even coastal desalinization plants. As I said before, useful isotopes can be isolated from molten salt reactors for industrial sell off to help offset operating costs. Yes, waste is still produced, but I am confident that with proper precautions, the risks will not be nearly as horrible as you make them out to be.

I don't think you'll ever be able to convince me that next gen fission reactor schemes are 100% meltdown proof, but I like the way that you're describing them in comparison to what we've currently got. Unfortunately, we're never going to have a completely clean fission reactor, either, since we'll never be able to completely mitigate the production of unwanted byproducts.

Yes, more development needs to be done in both fields of fusion and fission. Yes, light water and pressured reactors are not the best of ideas, but you can thank that to the late Admiral Hyman Rickover who really plotted the course of reactor development during its developing years. That said, the US nuclear fleet has operated successful without incidence since its inception and implementation.

Ahem…

Chernobyl was bad, but what do you expect from a reactor built without any containment structure. Fukishima was bad, but what do you expect when you build a reactor that was not designed to withstand high magnitude tsunamis and earthquakes in a highly geologically active region. Three Mile Island wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, but was mostly publicized due to a film by the name of "The China Syndrome" coming out about two weeks before accident further driving fear of nuclear accidents.

So you agree that fission accidents are bad and should be prevented at reasonable cost, then?

@wolfwood:

I had no idea that the future energies biz was so territorial

Better wear the right colors when you're in the fission boys' neighborhood. They'll shank ya just for appreciating the God Fusion given sunlight.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Outerspec:

I agree that there are risks but I don't think we should just stop. While it is pretty evident fusion power would be excellent and preferable to fission, it is also evident that these fission plants are pretty much safe. No, you're right, they're not 100% safe but what is? This is ultimately the question of are the risks worth it? My answer to that is, I don't know, but there will be always be risks in everything we do no matter what the technology, so yeah. Some risks are greater than others but let's not be too hasty in not taking them altogether.

I know there's a difference between unnecessary risk and necessary risk, but I don't see fission as unnecessary. It provides energy, puts less carbons in the environment, and it is for the most part safe.

Like you, and like everyone else here I suspect. I do wish for commercialized fusion energy as fast as possible though.

I don't think I've ever heard someone use the expression "let's not be too hasty" when arguing for risky behavior. Interesting tactic, there, it totally threw me off.

Let's hope that we don't have too many more fission accidents before ITER starts burning hotter than the surface of the sun.

[tarrin4ever]

@benjamminbrown:

Get the picture?

Radioactive waste isn't widespread? What do you see here?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7God35mVSvk/Ue2Z-mxzaoI/AAAAAAAABdw/eFrpqdHIetk/s1600/Fukushima+fallout.jpg

That's Fukushima's aftermath, and that's just what's in the water.

Nope, that's just the water.

That image represents the wave height of the tsunami that hit Japan just prior to the Fukushima incident. Unless you think radiation is measured in centimetres.

I'll give you credit, it is a very scary looking picture.

[Outerspec]

@benjamminbrown:

I don't think I've ever heard someone use the expression "let's not be too hasty" when arguing for risky behavior. Interesting tactic, there, it totally threw me off.

Let's hope that we don't have too many more fission accidents before ITER starts burning hotter than the surface of the sun.

You want us to stop building fission power plants and throw all of that money into fusion research right? Instead of fission power plants you would rather have the current CO2 producing energy sources built in the meantime to continue providing our energy supply, correct? That and a smattering of clean alternative energy sources but mainly CO2 producing energy sources like coal power plants for instance until we get fusion. Even with the scientific evidence on global warming which you say "we're contributing significantly" to.

Isn't that a risk you're willing to take?

[benjamminbrown]

@tarrin4ever:

Nope, that's just the water.

That image represents the wave height of the tsunami that hit Japan just prior to the Fukushima incident. Unless you think radiation is measured in centimetres.

I'll give you credit, it is a very scary looking picture.

Wow, I'm super embarrassed that I posted that. I'll edit my post with two three more plots that make much more sense. Doesn't change my message at all, though…

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Outerspec:

You want us to stop building fission power plants and throw all of that money into fusion research right? Instead of fission power plants you would rather have the current CO2 producing energy sources built in the meantime to continue providing our energy supply, correct? That and a smattering of clean alternative energy sources but mainly CO2 producing energy sources like coal power plants for instance until we get fusion. Even with the scientific evidence on global warming which you say "we're contributing significantly" to.

Isn't that a risk you're willing to take?

Yup, but do I really need to explain for the 100th time why I am positive that nuclear waste is more dangerous than carbon emissions?

[Outerspec]

No need, I'm not trying to sway your position. Simply pointing out that you are arguing for risks too. It's the fuel of progression and sustainability.

[benjamminbrown]

Well, alright, you don't have to put all of the fission money into fusion research. You can spend some of it on super efficient cars and hydrocarbon plants, too. There's really a whole lot more ways for us to reduce our carbon emissions than just jumping on the fission bandwagon.

[Outerspec]

Screw bandwagons, unless alcohol is a problem because you're supposed to be on that wagon.

I'm more in line with Blagtastic's thoughts where in the future it'll be a mix of energy sources. There's no one thing beats all solution.

[benjamminbrown]

Way to take the wind out of my sails, OS. I thought that I'd made a fusion supporter out of ya.

Seriously, why are there not more fusion lovers in this crowd? I just don't get it.

Fu~sio~~n!

[Outerspec]

@Outerspec:

it is pretty evident fusion power would be excellent and preferable to fission

Remember, I said this. I am a fusion supporter and I think everyone else is too. We just don't have the technology yet. Go ahead and fund the research, get the grants, and spread the support. I'm all for that but in the meantime…

[tarrin4ever]

@benjamminbrown:

Wow, I'm super embarrassed that I posted that. I'll edit my post with two three more plots that make much more sense. Doesn't change my message at all, though…

In your defense, you probably found the image from a source implying that it was related to the radiation dispersion. When it comes to topics that get heavily sensationalized in today's media, ya really gotta look closely at what they're using as proofs.

But I'm shit for listening to my own advice, so allow me to potentially make that mistake myself in regards to how much humanity adds to the background radiation on the planet. If anything below turns out to be a gross misrepresentation of real data, I'd be more than interested in seeing the actual data and eager to correct myself.

Tucked inside a spoiler cut for those who'd rather look at Random News Articles

! Ok, is it just us nerds here? Cool. Lemmie take a crack at this.
! This is a representation of average sources of background radiations found throughout the world.
! >!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa/atoms_radiation/nuclearradiationrev1.shtmlFrom this, we can undeniably see that mankind does in fact contribute to background radiation. However, as clearly indicated on the graph, the majority of our overall background radiation sources all come from it's medical appliations…. DOWN WITH DOCTORS, THEY'VE DOOMED US ALL!!!
! Of course, this would be a moot point when one is standing within the epicenter of a major fallout. You will most certainly have a larger percentage of man made background radiation cooking your insides when you're at ground zero of a major nuclear reaction. And that's definitely man made. But death comes from radiation overwhelming the cell (radiation poisoning) as opposed to a long term potential to develop cancer.
! Here is a representation of the background radiation left behind after the Fukushima incident:
! >! Now lets compare this to other sources of background radiation. I've been told that avg earth background is about 0.2 uSv/h
! Background radiation in Japan before fukushima incident: 0.4x earth average background radiation
Background radiation in areas around the fukushima exclusion zone (red): 40x average
Background radiation the average person experiences on an airplane: 15-30x average
Background radiation in areas around Brazil, on a beach that had zero nuclear tests or meltdowns: 100x average
! This isn't me trying to marginalize Fukushima, this is just for comparative purposes. I'm a pretty paranoid person at times so I don't think I'll be visiting that beach any time soon.
! It's true, living in areas of higher concentrations of background radiation will increase your chance of getting cancer by a proportional amount. But the chance of developing cancer solely from background radiation is extremely slim. Like really, really slim. You're risking your life every time you leave your house and drive a car, maybe even more so than living in an area of higher than average background radiation. I wager exposure to massive air pollution is doing the world a lot more harm on the cancer front than hanging out in the few places on earth that'll give you enough background radiation to get cancer.
! I wonder what background radiation looks like in areas where large amounts of waste material is stored. Does anyone know if such a map exists, and how it compares to natural background radiation hot spots around the world?

[benjamminbrown]

@tarrin4ever:

It's true, living in areas of higher concentrations of background radiation will increase your chance of getting cancer by a proportional amount. But the chance of developing cancer solely from background radiation is extremely slim. Like really, really slim. You're risking your life every time you leave your house and drive a car, maybe even more so than living in an area of higher than average background radiation. I wager exposure to massive air pollution is doing the world a lot more harm on the cancer front than hanging out in the few places on earth that'll give you enough background radiation to get cancer.

Excellent post! I'm honestly surprised that there isn't more radiation from cosmic and artificial sources. The artificial quantity will surely grow a lot if we really do start switching all of our power plants over to fission. The problem with the artificial sources is that they're the only ones that will basically last forever and grow with time as we make more and more radioactive waste. Cosmic, Ground, Food/Drink, and Radon should all stay the same for the rest of time as far as we're concerned.

Here's something funny I've heard: There have been some studies showing that low levels of background radiation can do the body good. Like, it's better to have a little than none at all.

I guess this sorta makes sense when you consider that we've been evolving to live in some nominal level of background radiation for billions of years.

edit: Oh, hey, but I just realized something. Your pie charts must represent what an average person is exposed to in their lifetime (or in a single year or something), right? We can't really use that as a measurement of how much artificial radiation we are creating, since it is probably based on the assumption that the average person doesn't live near any fission power plants or waste dumps. Also, it's sort of artificially inflating the medical source, since I really doubt that medical machines are contributing more to the actual radioactivity of the environment than the power plants used to run them. For instance, someone who never goes to the doctor would have a much smaller medical slice to their pie.

[tarrin4ever]

@benjamminbrown:

edit: Oh, hey, but I just realized something. Your pie charts must represent what an average person is exposed to in their lifetime (or in a single year or something), right? We can't really use that as a measurement of how much artificial radiation we are creating, since it is probably based on the assumption that the average person doesn't live near any fission power plants or waste dumps. Also, it's sort of artificially inflating the medical source, since I really doubt that medical machines are contributing more to the actual radioactivity of the environment than the power plants used to run them. For instance, someone who never goes to the doctor would have a much smaller medical slice to their pie.

I'd have to look further into that and find out. It may have to do with the terminology, perhaps background radiation is defined as what we are exposed to rather than whats exists within nature. Rather than carbon dioxide that collects and disperse throughout an environment as a kind of molecule, radiation is a form of energy emissions that come from a number of sources. Is trying to measure how much "radiation" exists in nature not unlike trying to measure how much "heat" exists? Or are we looking for the volume of it's sources? Someone needs to find a breakdown of environmental radioactivity.

Of this information, I'm not completely certain. But we can still compare the impact of radiation coming from different sources. Apparently the airplane at cruising altitude still exposes us to almost as much radiation as the worst of the measured fallout zones in Fukushima.

edit: Another thought. Considering it's a global average, do you believe the majority of people have access to medical facilities? Or even dentists? In which case, could that number actually be "deflated" and that individualy we with access to medical care have even greater exposure to radiation from medical sources?

[benjamminbrown]

@Taggerung:

If you want to talk about hyperbole you can discuss the disasters that have occurred during nuclear waste disposal…

I'm just going to put these here. Some of them are kind of serious, others not so much, but it really gets you thinking about the kind of trouble we might be getting ourselves into with more prevalent fission power production.

These are quite recent from the US:

Radiation levels fall after nuclear waste leak in New Mexico

Call for better oversight of nuclear-waste storage

Nuclear-waste facility on high alert over risk of new explosions (Damn you, kitty litter!!!)

And here are a few from France in 2008:

New incident at French nuclear plant

'It feels like a sci-fi film' - accidents tarnish nuclear dream

INTERVIEW-Too many French nuclear workers contaminated

Mmm, gotta love that sweet smell of untreated liquid uranium in the morning.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@tarrin4ever:

I'd have to look further into that and find out. It may have to do with the terminology, perhaps background radiation is defined as what we are exposed to rather than whats exists within nature. Rather than carbon dioxide that collects and disperse throughout an environment as a kind of molecule, radiation is a form of energy emissions that come from a number of sources. Is trying to measure how much "radiation" exists in nature not unlike trying to measure how much "heat" exists? Or are we looking for the volume of it's sources? Someone needs to find a breakdown of environmental radioactivity.

Of this information, I'm not completely certain. But we can still compare the impact of radiation coming from different sources. Apparently the airplane at cruising altitude still exposes us to almost as much radiation as the worst of the measured fallout zones in Fukushima.

Definitely a terminology issue, here. Those graphs seem limited to the scope of how much radiation an "average" person feels from their environment. But we need to also recognize that the radioactive pollutants that we create will irradiate more than just us. It's a vicious cycle, though, because all that other stuff that gets irradiated ends up indirectly irradiating us, too.

I guess I might have been wrong to say that the food/drink piece of the pie should remain static, then. We've got to remember that our food and water is going to get irradiated by our waste, too.

edit: Another thought. Considering it's a global average, do you believe the majority of people have access to medical facilities? Or even dentists? In which case, could that number actually be "deflated" and that individualy we with access to medical care have even greater exposure to radiation from medical sources?

On the contrary, I get the feeling that the BBC article this graph is from is targeted towards people in developed nations who have good access to health care. It's more likely, I think, that the pie chart is supposed to show what a typical West European's average yearly intake of radiation looks like and where it generally comes from. If this is the case, then it's more likely that what we see for the medical slice is pretty inflated for what the actual average person feels.

I could be totally wrong, though.

[Supernova122]

@benjamminbrown:

And I'll go ahead and say that you're full of horse shit because this is precisely what I've been studying for the last fucking decade.

What have you been studying exactly? Not the environmental impact of energy policy, right? Because you know a lot of things which you're then applying with some lack of common sense …

Very funny, but you know that's not what I was asking, right? Why do you think that it's better to irradiate the planet than to do what we can to find other ways to diminish carbon emissions? That's what I'm asking you.

You're saying that we are already doing a great job of containing our nuclear waste. I've pointed out to you over and over again how that's just a blatant fallacy. Tell me why you think that what we are doing right now is sufficient. Please.

Yes, there are lots of sources of radiation that we already have to contend with, already plaguing the species with more cancer than we'd ever want to have to manage. Now, you're telling me that you think it's a good idea to exacerbate that problem?

I think you missed the point. It's not exacerbating the problem if the additional dosage is so extremely low compared to the existing dosage … fission isn't exacerbating the problem it's just adding a little teeny tiny bit to it. Which scares the shit out of you for no good reason.

You say that irradiation of the planet by nuclear waste and the risk of fission power plant meltdowns is a better alternative than continuing to burn fossil fuels in the way that we have been. So what? Making more fission power plants is not going to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels any time soon. You think that developing nations are going to actually try to make fission power plants and other alternative energy sources?

If we currently consume Z power pa, and then we phase out some coal plants and replace them with fission plants, we'll produce X ( <z) power="" from="" nuclear="" …="" that's="" x="" less="" than="" we'd="" be="" producing="" fossil="" fuels="" otherwise.="" why="" you="" think="" it's="" all="" or="" nothing,="" i="" don't="" understand.="" fission="" is="" a="" perfectly="" solid="" option="" for="" the="" big="" energy="" consumers.="" usa,="" europe,="" russia?="" japan="" and="" south="" korea?="" china="" india?="" brazil?="" these="" together="" make="" around="" three="" quarters="" of="" world's="" electricity="" consumption;="" see="" believe="" can="" invest="" in="" renewable="" ...="" when="" lot="" them="" already="" do.<br="">> I'm way more comfortable with them building more coal plants and getting it right than taking their chances with fission power plants and inevitably getting it really wrong. We've all seen just what can happen when a rushed, developing nation tries to build something that's a little beyond their understanding/ability (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.).

Yes, the USSR, USA and Japan, those well known developing nations.

Or is it more like "Man those Chinese with their cutting edge technology, they'll screw it up."

Speaking of China, they're not particularly up for building more coal plants because coal plants suck. Hence the nuclear. And the wind farms. And the HE.</z)>

[benjamminbrown]

@Supernova122:

I think you missed the point. It's not exacerbating the problem if the additional dosage is so extremely low compared to the existing dosage … fission isn't exacerbating the problem it's just adding a little teeny tiny bit to it. Which scares the shit out of you for no good reason.

Again, the one missing the point is you. What about "our nuclear waste lasts forever, it's a growing problem that will probably even outlast all of humanity" do you not get?

Fission is absolutely exacerbating the problem if it is contributing to background radiation levels, which it is doing, and will continue to do for millions of years. You really think that you can actually argue against this? The universe is stacked against you, here, Supernova.

If we currently consume Z power pa, and then we phase out some coal plants and replace them with fission plants, we'll produce X ( <z) power="" from="" nuclear="" …="" that's="" x="" less="" than="" we'd="" be="" producing="" fossil="" fuels="" otherwise.="" why="" you="" think="" it's="" all="" or="" nothing,="" i="" don't="" understand.="" fission="" is="" a="" perfectly="" solid="" option="" for="" the="" big="" energy="" consumers.="" usa,="" europe,="" russia?="" japan="" and="" south="" korea?="" china="" india?="" brazil?="" these="" together="" make="" around="" three="" quarters="" of="" world's="" electricity="" consumption;="" see="" believe="" can="" invest="" in="" renewable="" ...="" when="" lot="" them="" already="" do.<="" blockquote="">OK, here's a hypothetical situation that may help to illustrate how you have no clue what you're talking about:

Today I'm going to buy a hybrid car that gets 100 miles per gallon. I'm doing this because it's smart, saves me money, and is good for the environment. This is all well and good, but is this going to stop the four other people in China, India, South Korea, and Brazil who are on their way to buy the cheapest cars that they can afford?

You do know that these four developing nations have increased their carbon emissions over the last couple decades by more than 80%, right?

These are the guys that you're saying are for sure going to build only nuclear plants.

And let's not forget the rest of the world which is still playing catch up. I really think it's laughable that you want developing nations to use nuclear energy.

Yes, the USSR, USA and Japan, those well known developing nations.

Well, USSR and USA were developing nations at the time of their accidents, so… what's your point?

Or is it more like "Man those Chinese with their cutting edge technology, they'll screw it up."

Actually, yes, it's exactly like this. They're just as likely to screw it up as the rest of us. I think you're really starting to get the picture. Good job, Supernova!

Speaking of China, they're not particularly up for building more coal plants because coal plants suck. Hence the nuclear. And the wind farms. And the HE.

Do tell me more about how you're sure that China doesn't want to build any new coal plants. These guys are the worst offenders, and you're trying to tell me that they are only going to build fission plants. You really need to reevaluate what you think you know about this topic, Supernova.

Seriously, I can't believe that I'm even replying at this point. You started this whole thing off not wanting to believe a single thing I've said, when it's me who has to be teaching you essentially all of the basics. Maybe if you'd actually learn something about what you're saying then this conversation wouldn't be going so poorly.</z)>

[Panda Bear]

I've by and large been keeping entirely out of this, on account of, frankly, knowing next to nothing on the subject. It's been far more interesting simply to read. That said, a couple things I feel like I can respond to in a general sense:

@benjamminbrown:

Fission is absolutely exacerbating the problem if it is contributing to background radiation levels, which it is doing, and will continue to do for millions of years.

OK. So, today I'm going to buy a hybrid car that gets 100 miles per gallon. I'm doing this because it's smart, saves me money, and is good for the environment. This is all well and good, but is this going to stop the four other people in China, India, South Korea, and Brazil who are on their way to buy the cheapest car they can afford?

The issue I take with your first statement, and which I think Super is trying to argue against, is the implication that absolutely any contribution to background radiation levels whatsoever is 'exacerbation'. The way that reads, at least to me, is that even if fission only contributed (totally hypothetical made-up numbers ahead) .00000000001% to the background radiation levels, it would still be 'exacerbating' the issue. If this is truly what you feel, then fine, and it would likely be best to simply agree to disagree on that particular point, rather than continuing to argue past each other. If, on the other paw, you would respond by saying no, of course you don't mean that, that would be silly, but it's irrelevant because of course fission actually contributes significantly more than that… then I would at least hope that you could see where Nova is coming from. I have no doubt whatsoever that he recognizes that fission contributes some amount to the background levels -- frankly, implying that he doesn't seems kind of disingenuous to me -- however, he simply feels that it is simply not enough to be a particular issue. (If he will forgive me for putting words into his mouth, of course).

As to your second point, I will simply say that I very much hope I am misunderstanding, since the way I read it, you seem to be suggesting that its silly for anyone to ever do anything to try to help the environment, simply because of the fact that there are others who are not.

[Satsuki]

When a discussion takes up 3 pages in a thread distracting from the purpose of said thread, it's time for a new thread. Keep your argument going here. If it gets out of hand, this thread is getting closed.

[benjamminbrown]

Thanks for the reply, Panda.

I see what you're saying about my first point. Let me clarify: According to recent studies, people still get almost 1/1000 of all of their background radiation just from the Chernobyl disaster. This contribution to the background radiation levels may seem insignificant to you guys, but please remember that it will essentially last forever. Any comparable accidents (and believe me, they can be worse) will permanently (as far as we're concerned) raise background radiation levels by a comparable amount. And this is only considering how much radiation your average person feels from it. Also, we're completely ignoring the vicious cycle of environmental irradiation where, even if any given person is pretty well shielded from the byproducts of fission reactions, it is quite impossible to make sure that none of the food and water supply gets contaminated.

Next, please consider all of the nuclear waste that we are burying which doesn't really factor into this analysis (yet). Because it's buried underground, the nuclear waste does not appear to influence background radiation levels on the surface of the planet very much. But, as I've said, it's a vicious cycle, since the buried waste will irradiate the ground that it is buried in. Eventually, even the ground and nearby water sources will start to be radioactive, raising background radiation levels even more.

As for my second point, I'm not saying that at all. Of course it'd be good for me to buy a new hybrid car. It's good for the environment, and it's good for my wallet. I'm not arguing against that at all.

What I'm trying to clarify for Supernova is this: No matter what we developed nations decide to do about the climate, it's not going to stop developing nations from making energy in whatever way they please. They're probably going to opt for the easiest/cheapest approaches, like they've been doing, which I tried to show with that link in the end of my previous post.

[Panda Bear]

@Satsuki:

When a discussion takes up 3 pages in a thread distracting from the purpose of said thread, it's time for a new thread. Keep your argument going here. If it gets out of hand, this thread is getting closed.

Sats is clearly a shill for Big Solar, trying to silence all of the competition in one swell foop. Don't think we aren't on to you!

[Wagomu]

Why can't we just stick with good ol' natural clean burning coal?