Hippies for Nukyoolar Power?
Posted in General by ben
As cheap as I feel linking to another news item instead of writing a proper article…here is another news item instead of a proper article.
Washington Post: Greenpeace Co-Founder Now Favors Nuclear Power Plants
In short: Patrick Moore, who helped start Greenpeace back in the ’70s, has written an op-ed piece laying out the environmentalist argument for nuclear power. He argues that the US could drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by widely adopting nuclear power in place of coal-burning plants. At severe risk to his hippie credentials, Moore insists that nuclear power would be both cleaner and safer than coal, and furthermore, that nuclear power is presently the only plausible alternative to coal.
Absent from Moore’s argument is any acknowledgement of thermal pollution. Water used to cool nuclear reactors is released back into the environment several degrees warmer, destroying local marine environments. I’m not sure how much of a danger thermal pollution poses…it seemed like an apocalyptic threat in seventh grade science class, but there are several possibilities. It could be that the threat was exaggerated. Or that scientific evidence showed the threat to be negligible. Or it could be that Moore, who would most likely be aware of such problems given his affiliation with various environmental groups, simply ignores it. I’m afraid I’m not up to speed on the pros and cons of nuclear power.
So, framed by Moore’s piece … should the US make wider use of nuclear power?
Discuss.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I say yes.
Although thermal energy has its cons, they are much lower than that of the other alternatives. Doesn’t all power generation release heat anyways?
April 17th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Ooooh, that’s about time.
I was just treading water, thinking to myself — “What would the founder of Greenpeace think about nuclear energy, because I don’t have a neuron firing in my brain until someone tells me what to think. I guess that this is a call to action now that it’s been approved by Patrick.”
On my shelf I have a copy of “Voices from Chernobyl” by Svetlana Alexievich. It’s a great book and you can pick it up used from Amazon for about $5. It’s a small book of observations by ordinary people that were effected. About 230 pages, large print, small 4×6 book – you can get through it in about 2 hrs.
After reading it, do a search on eBay for Chernobyl where you can pick up the much coveted heroism badge that the government gave out by the hundreds of thousands. I think the going rate was about $10 the last time I looked.
But don’t worry because our government isn’t like the Russkies. We never lie to the people, we don’t let business interests take precedence and we always give the design and building contracts to the best, not the cheapest builders, architects and designers. We’re much smarters than the Russkies in that way.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Thermal energy does pose some threat to the wildlife in the water. Fish and other aquatic life can be pretty sensitive to even slight changes in the temperature. It makes sense to me, though, that if the nuclear reactors were located on rivers, the effects of the heat pollution would be greatly reduced, just because the water is constantly moving to another place. This would at least help dilute the damage. I also agree that this heat pollution is better than greenhouse gas emission. An increase in temperature due to greenhouse gases has the potential to have a much greater effect on our habitat than heat dumped into water. Greenhouse gases will affect entire climates. The sea level will rise somewhat, flooding some low lying areas of land, and crop production will be affected. Apparently , crop production may increase in some of the northern parts of the world, including some parts of America, but countries near the equator will take the bulk of the blow in terms of crop yield. There is a big difference between heat release into water and heat release from coal burning into the air. Water holds the heat longer, whereas heat released into the air can easily rise and eventually leave the planet.
Now what would be great is if we could finally figure out how to make nuclear fusion work. There would be fewer radioactive byproducts and it would generate much more energy. As great as that sounds, there are no guarantees that it will ever happen.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I remember the same thermal pollution discussions in school that you do. Thermal pollution isn’t much of an issue for power plants these days – those that need to cool their water before returning it to the source (necessary if you are on a small river, for instance, which can’t absorb much heat) now do so via cooling towers – except perhaps for a few old coal plants. ON the positive side, I know that manatees in Florida love hanging out around plant discharges during the winter because of the few degrees of extra warmth.
FYI: Stewart Brand, the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog mentioned in the linked article above, has also endorsed a novel of nuclear power by a longtime industry insider (me). This is a good lay person’s guide to the good and the bad of this power source. It covers TMI, and particulary the Chernobyl disaster, in some detail. The book is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com – and they seem to like it, judging from their homepage comments.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Wow, thanks a lot
April 17th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
How timely — today on PBS NewsHour a story about Exelon and the release of about 3M gallons of tritium contaminated water into the groundwater.
The executives reported it to the regulatory agencies, but not to the local community. “In retrospect [now that this is public] we should have told the local community about the tritium,” the company’s VP stated on the NewsHour.
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/041506/REG_B9HOEJHK....
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/stat...
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2...
BYRON — The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency sent a violation notice to Exelon Generation because of leaks of tritium into the groundwater.
The tritium leaks are the same problems plaguing Exelon at its Dresden and Braidwood facilities.
The notice gives Exelon 45 days to respond and provide plans to fix or correct its violations. Exelon reported valves leaked allowing tritium to leak into standing water at the plant and groundwater.
Exelon also was sited for discharging contaminated water in unapproved areas and failure to correctly report groundwater discharges.
The Byron station is about 25 miles south of Rockford. IEPA officials stressed the levels of tritium found in the water are not a general health risk.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
That’s one huge catch about nuclear plants. You HAVE to take every precaution when disposting of radioactive waste. To force plants to do this, there need to be HUGE fines enacted for firms that are caught.
There’s an equation you can use to model this:
Cost of Proper Disposal = Dp
Cost of Illegal Disposal = Di
Amount of Fine = F
Probability of Being Caught = P
Revenue = R
(1) Profits when using Proper Disposal = R – Dp
(2) Profits when using Illegal Disposal = R – Di – P*F
So, if firms believe (1) > (2) , they will not illegally dispose of stuff. Thus, increasing fines is a good idea… even if it’s to a crazily high level. We can also increase monitoring to increase P, but that costs us money which is not good… so increasing P should only be done to an extent.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:34 am
I agree; but it’s very easy to point out the downfalls about any source of energy. There are over 5,000 deaths each year due to coal mining accidents. There are nuclear power plants in the country right now, and how often do you hear about a death? Never really…
April 18th, 2006 at 9:00 am
. There are over 5,000 deaths each year due to coal mining accidents.
That’s partly my point. In mine safety, what takes precedence (safety or production) and what is the basic disincentive that George is pointing out? Nice formula but not likely that it would ever be actually considered outside an academic setting. After the Sago mine deaths what were the fines? — we had a dozen dead and a variety of safety violations. Was the company punished to make it regret these actions? Not by the government. Tort action is always a possibility, but remember that tort is designed to redress something that has already gone wrong. Once a father/husband/son is dead the tort activity is revenge and compensation to survivors. Would you rather have sight in both eyes or be blind and have a $million dollars? I’d rather have sight.
It’s important to remember that under our version of capitalism, the government is deferential to employers and business owners. Sometimes because of corruption, but mostly because business owners and employers maintain the fabric of our culture and the government knows it. Employers (even crappy ones) provide income and jobs to the overwhelming majority of Americans (and jobs are one of the most important things in our lives) — if the government hobbles employers, than the government takes on the responsibility for employing and providing support to greater percentages of the workforce and the government is BAD at it. The more governmental regulations (and fines) impinge on business, the more the status quo in America is threatened. Both Democrats and Republicans know this and that’s why you only see a lot of posturing and rhetoric but little actual change.
Incidentally think about the collectivist implications of tort redress. It implies strongly that groups such as parent/child/husband/wife have implicit and explicit connections. The parent dies, the child or spouse gets tort support. Why? Because of strong social collectivist implications. In other words, contrary to Kilgore’s assertions that in a libertarian society all you need from the government is a legal system and tort, it doesn’t do much for the actual party wronged although members of the collectivist nucleus around the wronged party can get limited redress.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Shaniqua, regardless of whether people think of a formula when they make decisions, it’s a very useful tool to measure why they make their decisions. Sure, nobody is going to be thinking about P and F and D, but they are going to be scared off by a higher probability of getting caught and a larger fine.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
George, that’s very idealistic.
People won’t be scared of much because they know the government isn’t going to be punitive in certain crimes even if there are laws on the books. There’s blue collar crime, there’s white collar crime and there’s corporate crime. Which one fills the jails?
Secondly, think about my post from the other day: Who are the eco-terrorists that the DHS is worried about (running your ink dry)? The ones that pollute or the ones that want to stop pollution? It should give you a clue in the way it’s enforced.
And BTW, check out the Greenpeace report on Chernobyl making the rounds today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12368859/
April 18th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Idealistic? You mean the fact that people and corporations respond to incentives is idealistic?
Regardless of whether they’re going to jail, people who run corporations are not going to condone acts that have a chance of severely hurting the corporation with a big fine.
I don’t think that’s idealistic at all, it’s precisely how people act.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Regardless of whether they’re going to jail, people who run corporations are not going to condone acts that have a chance of severely hurting the corporation with a big fine.
I don’t think that’s idealistic at all, it’s precisely how people act.
Is that right out of the textbook? Oh, ok, I guess I had it wrong — on second thought I guess that’s the right view — company executives work for the long term benefits of companies and workers to the detriment of their stock options.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Devil’s Advocate said:Is that right out of the textbook? Oh, ok, I guess I had it wrong — on second thought I guess that’s the right view — company executives work for the long term benefits of companies and workers to the detriment of their stock options.
Sarcasm, eh? So do you really believe that if they raised the fines by double there would be no change whatsoever? Or if they increased monitoring there would be no change whatsoever?
April 18th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Not much sarcasm. I know there’s a book answer and then there’s other answers that seem counterintuitive and surprisingly are equally valid. The only thing I’d bet on is that people are greedy and they’ll do what advances them in the short term. Your answer is valid, I just would do otherwise, so I know your answer isn’t the only right one.
I was visiting someone today, and they got some college recruitment mail. On the envelope it said, “You only go to college once. Why not go to the place that’s right for you.” I pointed out the phrase “only go to college once”, and we both laughed, and laughed, then tossed it unopened.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:25 am
I don’t know if there is a valid answer that does not not have the same end as I stated. Perhaps people won’t react strongly to an increase in fines or an increase in the probability of being caught, but society as a whole will be affected when the rules of the game (fines and probability of getting caught) are changed.
And yes, I understand that you don’t value post K-12 education highly…
April 19th, 2006 at 8:32 am
And yes, I understand that you don’t value post K-12 education highly…
How do you understand that?
My point is that in today’s America going to college only once is insufficient since you’re going to be retrained several times through your life as jobs get procedurized and passed to cheap labor. Becoming a professional student with multiple degrees may be the way to go unless you choose a field that’s negotiated vs. contested (for example, a lawyer with an economics degree looks to be a negotiated career). For most, going to college only once is not going to get that set-for-life ticket punched, and certainly not if you’re going to college thinking that “this is the time that is culturally designed to be the most fun in your life”.
However, given some things that I hear from post K-12 educated people, I’d have to say that more specifically, I don’t value superficial understanding.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
You’ve made it quite clear that any time anyone makes a point that they may have learned from a class, that you believe they’re not thinking for themselves.
I don’t think you can assume this. Regardless of whether I used a formula in my answer, it does not mean I didn’t consider what it meant. I could copy and paste loads of text out of readings I had to do for class, but frankly I don’t believe a lot of stuff I learn.
Anyways, this is off topic. Are you for or against expansion of nuclear power plants in the US?
April 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Anyways, this is off topic. Are you for or against expansion of nuclear power plants in the US?
I don’t think I’m being clear at all because I’m not disparaging your formula; if anything I’m disparaging your belief that disincentives can be quantified in such a clear cut manner or that they’d be enforced fairly. Large companies capable of doing the most damage would be the least likely to be held to standards. Did Exxon ever pay for the full damage caused by the Valdiz? They got no money?
I am against the expansion of nuclear power because I believe that business interests (free range capitalism) and public safety is currently incompatible. I am aware that there’s an argument to be made that capitalists killing their clients is not good business sense, and yet, because I participate in the capitalist class, I believe that on the whole their main concern is that clients shouldn’t get killed off by the next quarterly report or better yet, before the stock options mature.
The incentives and disincentive in play are illustrated here: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/1413...
If you get around to reading it we’ll be in a better position to discuss the impact of incentives and disincentives and who they impact. If you don’t feel like reading it, feel free to believe that I have something against the good education purchased at the College of William and Mary. Certainly, it’s easier to be dismissive than to try to prove your point that people act precisely like something set by formula.
Any punitive formula is contingent on risk analysis.
April 19th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Higher education is not a mark of higher thinking. It’s an opportunity. Sure, there are plenty of idiots with college degrees. Not all degrees are created equal (even within the same department at the same university). The student has to bring something to the table in order for the degree to coincide with an actual education.
But as George says, back to the topic (which conveniently allows me to avoid skimming the rest of the comments).
Nuclear power. I thought the article was interesting, not because I think that environmentalists ought to run after Patrick Moore like proverbial lemmings, but because it’s an unexpected position for someone with his credentials. The same way I think it’s interesting to see liberal arguments for a flat tax or religious arguments for gay marriage. No one expects you to be the lemming, Shaniqua, but it seems to me that considering another perspective should get some of those neurons firing. Even among those of us who have long since made up our minds.
Point being, I think that the article should raise a few questions. Is there a good environmental case for expanded use of nuclear power? Or is Moore simply an ideological traitor? Perhaps some grey area in between, or something further out on one of the extremes? You’d be surprised how much thinking occurs when you honestly evaluate your own preconceptions against new information.
For my own part: I’m no expert on nuclear power by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t think I had given much thought to nuclear as a viable energy source. It was more or less a dead issue in my mind–the hippies won that battle long ago. What’s making me reconsider is the fact that there seems to be an environmentally- and logically-sound case for replacing coal plants with nuclear plants. I’m not a big fan of Greenpeace, so the personal endorsement of Patrick Moore doesn’t do much for me, but I thought it was interesting angle.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
And this is now the most commented article on gimme-five (check out the stats). I’m glad cause usually Ben’s articles are good but don’t generate much commentary. This one definitely did. Rock on Ben!
April 20th, 2006 at 5:25 am
Once again, I generate more debate when I post an article and disappear than when I actually write something thoughtful.