Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[Davy_Crockett]

I think group think is avoided by diligent reference of primary source material and by avoiding blanket assertions and anecdotes about what people do or don't do.

I do not need to reference the minutes of some obscure meetings, if that’s what you mean.

1) Team knew about the high water markers 2) Team did not know about the high water markers: Both indicate negligence Prima Facie.
OR/ Team considered the evidence of high water markers and miscalculated the risk of future events. Okay then, people do make mistakes.

So how did the design, planning, and approval process result in a failure to be adequately prepared?

It is not worthy of derision when terms such as "group think," "group denial," "herd mentality" and "Inability to intuitively grasp large time scales" are bandied about.

A repeat of the tsunami in 1896 was apparently not anticipated, even though...in relation to the anticipated custody chain of a spent fuel dump…the last tsunami event happened, "Yesterday."

Why is this worth defending? There is a lengthy build time, a lengthy operating time, and a lengthy decommissioning time for power plants. Flood risk analysis is critical.

Problem: If local sea level rise is 3.4mm/year and the rate doubles every 5 years, how soon will EXCO have to begin decommissioning the plant in order to assure completion of the task?

 

[HAYAO]

Another parallel between Japan and Germany. Both lost the war - in Japan also due to nuclear power - and got CNN.

Well I used to watch CNN when I lived in the States. But CNN isn't very popular in Japan. I barely watch them and they only air at specific time of the day unlike in the States where they have designated channel for themselves.

Well, better CNN than politicians that claim to be Gods.

Both (I mean the media in Japan, not CNN) are equally bad to me.

 

[UsableThought]

I've been lurking w/ interest; and have just now gone back through this lengthy thread to revisit where it's been & where it's going.

I liked very much some of the earlier discussion of, for example, the risks and costs of coal vs. nuclear; and also solar was briefly discussed. However at the moment it's focused only on nuclear in isolation. It seems to me that the earlier comments pointed to what might be more useful - namely, looking at risks, economic/logistic constraints, and benefits for all feasible electric power sources in future; and not just nuclear's risks in isolation. In particular I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has good sources for such an analysis? I am putting books that touch on risk, including technological & environmental risks, onto my reading list; but that's a long-term project for me.

(This post heavily edited to make it more relevant - UT.)

 

[nikkkom]

Some 16000 people died in the event, presumably mostly when structures failed to protect them from the earthquake or tsunami. I presume that very few of those deaths will be/have been pinned on criminal negligence of the designers/builders. So my question is: why is one criminally negligent and the other not?

How about researching it. No one in Japan raised any questions about tsunami deaths? There were no lawsuits? You are sure?

 

[nikkkom]

So what. If I offer you a thousand dollars and then renege and only give you 100, that's still a gift.

It wasn't a gift. It was a promise based on which general public agreed that this technology can be allowed. Nuclear industry failed to keep it.

It is not a gift also in a sense that nuclear power is not even competitive on cost.

A failed promise/prediction does not make nuclear power unsafe it just makes it a little less spectacularly safe than predicted.

Your definition of "spectacularly safe" is... er... "interesting".

 

[UsableThought]

Your definition of "spectacularly safe" is... er... "interesting".

To reiterate the point I made in comment #93, how safe are fossil fuel power plants given whatever their contribution is to global warming? Wouldn't that need to be part of the discussion? If options exist, the safety of any give option is relative to the others, not absolute.

 

[nikkkom]

To reiterate the point I made in comment #93, how safe are fossil fuel power plants given whatever their contribution is to global warming? Isn't safety relative rather than absolute?

Where do you see me promoting replacing nuclear with fossil fuel power plants?

 

[UsableThought]

Where do you see me promoting replacing nuclear with fossil fuel power plants?

Sorry, I think I asked my question poorly. Let me try again. The question of "fossil risk vs. nuclear risk" is merely a single example - admittedly crude - to illustrate that at the moment, the thread seems to have narrowed down to nuclear power risk in isolation. Which seems unlikely to be all that fruitful.

However, maybe the larger perspective that I would like to see has already been brought up, and those comments have run their course? I see that earlier, @mfb, @HAYAO, and @russ_watters brought up & discussed costs & risks associated with coal vs. nuclear; e.g. see russ_watters's post #15 and his comment #21 and various of HAYAO's responses; and mfb's comment #27 and Jim Hardy's #28. And I see that you in various comments, e.g. #52 and #56, brought up facts about solar & started a good side discussion about that.

I guess what I would really like to see, if anyone has it handy, is links to studies or analysis from outside sources that attempt to develop & quantify power alternatives for the future more rigorously. As I mentioned (in my edited comment above) I have a couple of primers coming to me in the mail that deal w/ risk and probability analysis; these may help me with my question, but not immediately.

 

[nikkkom]

Sorry, I think I asked my question poorly. Let me try again. The question of "fossil risk vs. nuclear risk" is merely a single example - admittedly crude - to illustrate that at the moment, the thread seems to have narrowed down to nuclear power risk in isolation. Which seems unlikely to be all that fruitful.

Correct. Risks should be compared for different energy sources, and it's unlikely that we will ever have a power source which is completely safe (no one ever dies or is harmed by it).

There are plenty of studies out there; a pity that many of them are biased one way or another.

 

[Thermo]

It's like traveling by plane. Better than traveling by car or bus but once it crashes survival rates are quite low. However, the possibility of the accidents is actually lower than that of cars. Planes are also faster and cleaner in terms of air pollution of cities.

 

[ChrisVer]

So back here, with more time at my disposal.

From an individual's point of view: In general I think that ignorance from the general public is the reason why they fear nuclear plants. I think the main cause of problem is that when you speak to an outsider about radioactivity or nuclear, the first think that crosses their mind is "cancer" or nuclear bombs exploding (this causes awe) . Cancer is of course something bad and so anything "nuclear" is associated to danger and causes fears... Fear is an emotion, and as such it can't be rationalized - even if you explain the public that it's very safe they will always feel uncomfortable with having or using it. Two incidents in 60 years created enough discomfort for those who want to actively fight against nuclear power.

From a political point of view: this results to politicians who are against nuclear projects (which affects how the governments look at funding those stuff). I don't know if the arrow shows from leadership to people (propaganda "ala Al Gore" etc) , or from people to leadership (elections, where incompetent people elect incompetent politicians). For some reason "green" stuff are better accepted by the general public, even though they are inefficient and ridiculous. But is that weird? For me no... The same people believe that medicine is "unnatural" and so cause more damage than they fix... they believe that bio-products are better for their health than normal products (people are ok with paying more to purchase bio, and they even think they taste better).
Nuclear power is not wanted by the great powers too; a nuclear plant can as well be used for the production of nuclear weapons. When you have conflicting interests between countries, this scenario is bad (afterall nuclear weapons are not used in wars nowadays but they are used for diplomacy; as a sign of power).

For the media: the media are not there to spread a truth or a lie. I don't think truths/lies exist in a social level (everyone has their own truths and lies - even when a couple breaks up you can hear several even conflicting reasons for that from the couple). So, media have a certain amount of time at their disposal to speak their views and make money. Popular ideas are popular to the media and unpopular ones- "well ehmm, they don't sell". Playing with emotions (not educating) also helps in that job... So they will prefer people who can say amazing stuff in a short amount of time, or even stimulate emotions like "amazement","disgust", "fear" or "anger", rather than people who would explain things scientifically (leading the general viewers to boredom). Documentaries are more educational for the general public (although I don't like physics ones due to pop-sci), but they target a specific group of people (who are willing to watch them).

Overall, I believe that nuclear power is currently out of the plans and won't return any time soon (if ever).

 

[russ_watters]

Coming back to the title of the thread "
Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?"

Let's go back to the 1950ies. Everybody was excited about nuclear energy, its possibilities, especially politicians and the general public, nuclear energy was supported by immense public investments. People were much more interested in science than nowadays.
So you had already all you asked for at the very beginning.

Thanks for the history, but that doesn't really address the issue, which is the perception problem that exists today.

Much of the origin of the anti-nuclear power movement are with the anti-nuclear weapons movement that started in the late 1950s.

However, what you say is only true insofar as it applies to the general movement. The very first true commercial nuclear plant was canceled due to public pressure/local citizen conflict. I consider this to be largely NIMBYism, but it had similar undertones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_movement#After_the_Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty

If anything, the issue has been handled backwards by anti-nuclear activists, since when the technology is in its infancy is when there is the most risk. But today with a 50+ year track record and at least 30 years of active development and improvement, the industry/technology has proven exceedingly safe.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that people see life pictures of exploding reactors, scattered fuel rods and the like in real time while Japanese politicians seemed to act headless and either not to possesses sufficient information or, even worse, keep it secret.

Not to be snarky, but are you referring to real life here? Neither of those things you mentioned actually happened!

The list of possible causes for this failiure could be very long, but I think the main problem was the hybris and arrogance of nuclear energies proponents.

Could you be more specific please (or even post some references)? As far as I can tell, there is no coherent or even loose "pro nuclear" movement. For right now, the issue is essentially dead. So where, exactly are you seeing this hubris/arrogance? You and @nikkkom are claiming unfulfilled/false/overconfident promises are being made, but I have not seen any such promises actually cited. So please tell me: where are you getting this from? I'll be blunt: it looks to me like the two of you are making these things up, as products of your own active imaginations, similar to the above things that you say you saw but didn't happen.

 

[mheslep]

rate doubles every 5 years,

Group think? If the rate doubles at all, more like every several hundred years per the models. SLR in the do nothing scenario of emissions is around 1.5 ft by 2100, per the models.

 

[gmax137]

Group think? If the rate doubles at all, more like every several hundred years per the models. SLR in the do nothing scenario of emissions is around 1.5 ft by 2100, per the models.

Yeah, using Davy_Crockett's rates (3.4 mm/year doubling every 5 years) I get your 1.5 feet in 2039 which is 60 years too soon. Keeping those rates out to 2100 would yield a rise of ~7500 feet. The "power of compounding" indeed.

 

[russ_watters]

I liked very much some of the earlier discussion of, for example, the risks and costs of coal vs. nuclear; and also solar was briefly discussed. However at the moment it's focused only on nuclear in isolation. It seems to me that the earlier comments pointed to what might be more useful - namely, looking at risks, economic/logistic constraints, and benefits for all feasible electric power sources in future; and not just nuclear's risks in isolation.

This is an excellent point: it isn't a binary nuclear or nothing choice. No reasonable analysis can look at nuclear in isolation but instead must compare nuclear to viable alternatives.

 

[russ_watters]

How about researching it. No one in Japan raised any questions about tsunami deaths? There were no lawsuits? You are sure?

I did not say "no lawsuits" or "no...questions". Don't be disingenuous and don't purposely misrepresent the arguments of others.

Now. Your own participation in this thread and similar ones belies your implication -- you must be aware that the vast majority of the critical treatment of the event was focused on Fukushima because you are neck deep in it. But to put a finer point on it, I tried a general search of "Japan earthquake tsunami lawsuit" and here is what the first 20 results looked like:
14 about Fukushima
3 about celebrity poor taste
2 about a lawsuit over an elementary school that was not evacuated fast enough
1 other

Trying harder to target building codes and enforcement, "japan earthquake tsunami building code lawsuit":
Of the first 10 hits, 8 were praising the building codes and the other two were irrelevant.

So yes, it is perfectly fair to say that the nuclear industry is viewed far harsher despite a vastly superior safety record than the general construction industry. It's the expectations gap.

It wasn't a gift. It was a promise based on which general public agreed that this technology can be allowed. Nuclear industry failed to keep it.

Still so what. What you got was still spectacular compared to the alternatives.

A failed promise/prediction does not make nuclear power unsafe it just makes it a little less spectacularly safe than predicted.
Your definition of "spectacularly safe" is... er... "interesting".

Then come up with your own specific criteria and weigh nuclear power fairly against it. What you are doing here is using "failed promise" as an excuse to avoid actually looking at the safety record and judging it critically/fairly against the alternatives.

Where do you see me promoting replacing nuclear with fossil fuel power plants?

You need to do better than that and you need to separate backwards and forwards in time:
1. Looking backwards, it is historical fact that coal power was increased due to the decrease in nuclear exploitation. It already happened so there is nothing that can be done to escape it. It can't be escaped by claiming lack of actual support for coal because that is the logical result of attacking nuclear without proposing a viable alternative: the default alternative gets filled in.
2. You need to actually advocate a viable alternative moving forward in order for your claim of not promoting fossil fuels to be true in light of #1. Because the logic still applies and the substituting of coal for nuclear is ongoing.

 

[Kaura]

I think that a lot of people are fearful of Nuclear Energy due to events such as the Chernobyl disaster. Sadly, it is nearly impossible to have a viable energy source that does not possesses the ability to cause disaster. I mean oil spills happen every now and then but instead of halting the use of oil, the industry does its best to clean up the the aftermath and furthermore works to make such events less likely in the future. I think that Nuclear Energy when done right is a viable and relatively clean source of power.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

 

[UsableThought]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

It was mentioned, quite a bit; a lot of back-and-forth discussion on waste. See for example posts #21, #22, #26, #27, and #34.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi UsableThought:

I much appreciate your listing these references to waste. It is clear that my statement was an error.

I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal.

I should have said: I failed to notice any discussion of nuclear waste. I did not read all the posts, but only scanned them, and apparently not carefully enough.

My impression of the discussion in the posts you listed is that the arguments were mostly about CO2 being a much more serious problem than nuclear plant waste. For example:

However, to directly answer your question: yes, it is much better to have a drum of nuclear waste that you can completely control than it is to have a million tons of CO2, free in the atmosphere, that you can't control.

The ONLY reason we ever need to worry about CO2 and global warming is because it risks our lives in the long term. Nuclear waste is stored deep down Earth where it won't affect us. They are controlled unlike CO2 that are emitted all over the atmosphere and are not controlled.

I certainly agree that CO2 is more serious, but I am optimistically hopeful that humans will be able to deal with two serious problems at the same time rather than fail to deal with either, which seems to be our current state.

HAYAO's comment (re-quoted below) I think is incorrect.

Nuclear waste is stored deep down Earth where it won't affect us.​

In the United States, I understand that a great deal of nuclear waste is awaiting disposal in containers stored on the surface near the nuclear plant facility. This is because there is no current national policy for it's permanent disposal. If I am mistaken about this I hope some one with well informed knowledge about this will post a reference. There is also the issue of getting the waste to an agreed upon disposal site. Will it be by trucks on highways or by trains traveling on not very well maintained tracks, and in either case, passing nearby highly populated areas. Perhaps a knowledgeable person can calculate and post the numerical risks.

There is also one additional issue I have not noticed being discussed, and which I am unable to evaluate. If a policy were developed to replace fossil fuel plants for electricity generation with additional nuclear plants, how long would it take before the new plants would be online? If this policy were intended to "solve" the CO2 problem, would it be timely? In the mean time, it seems to me, it would be an excuse to ignore the CO2 problem.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[russ_watters]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

I'm not sure, but I thought I mentioned it before: the waste disposal issue is a political fiction. People have been trained to believe that because the waste is dangerous, that is a problem, but it is far safer to have dangerous waste in solid or liquid form - so you can control and store it - than in gaseous form - so you can't.

The US doesn't have a centralized storage facility, which is fine for now - the waste is fine stored on site.

 

[russ_watters]

There is also the issue of getting the waste to an agreed upon disposal site. Will it be by trucks on highways or by trains traveling on not very well maintained tracks, and in either case, passing nearby highly populated areas. Perhaps a knowledgeable person can calculate and post the numerical risks.

As I said above, it is fine for now stored on site, but yes as nuclear plants shut down it will eventually need to be moved. So you ship it in foot-thick armored containers that can survive getting hit by a train.

There is also one additional issue I have not noticed being discussed, and which I am unable to evaluate. If a policy were developed to replace fossil fuel plants for electricity generation with additional nuclear plants, how long would it take before the new plants would be online? If this policy were intended to "solve" the CO2 problem, would it be timely? In the mean time, it seems to me, it would be an excuse to ignore the CO2 problem.

By some accounts it may already be too late, but if a country like the US wanted to build a bunch to replace their coal plants and put a serious effort in like France it would probably take 20-30 years.

 

[mfb]

Transporting nuclear waste is not an issue. Or at least just an issue in terms of protests stopping them, but not in terms of safety of the waste handling. You could have the train crash into a solid wall, fall from a bridge, keep the containers in a fire, or explode a container full of fuel next to them, and the containers would still contain the waste without any leaks. You can even simulate a plane flying into it - a massive one ton projectile directly hitting the container at the speed of sound. And it still survives without leaks.

If a policy were developed to replace fossil fuel plants for electricity generation with additional nuclear plants, how long would it take before the new plants would be online?

5-10 years construction time. Planning time depends on the political system, it does not have to be long. We could probably shut down most coal power plants in 15-20 years.

 

[SredniVashtar]

IMBO the problem with nuclear power is not of technical nature. I have faith in the work of physicists, and I reasonably trust that of engineers. And I do agree that nuclear power, if done right, is a low-pollution form of energy production. What I do not trust, though, are accountants and politicians. They can f**k up all the good work done by physicists and engineers without even batting an eye.
Now, if something goes wrong, really wrong, with a nuclear plant, you are probably forfeiting a lot of money but most importantly a chunk of your land. For a long time. We are talking future generation time here. (Or have they already started rebuilding in the Chernobyl area?)
If something goes wrong with a traditional fossil fuel plant you affect only the current generation and for a limited amount of time. In fact, something is going wrong right now: pollution is claiming lives - but these are the current generation lives. Ideally, if we were to stop all fossil fuel plants now (because we finally discovered a plant powered by kitten cuteness), all that damage would stop now. If we were to stop all nuclear plants now, you would not not stop the damage done around Chernobyl. On the contrary: from what I've read, we have to pray that there will be no forest fires in the area, otherwise the contaminants would be put into the atmosphere again (correct me if I am wrong).

So, in the end, the answer to "would you like the clean energy of a nuclear power plant?" sounds exactly like "would you trust a politician with the lives of your children?".

I know the answer to that.
But your mileage may vary.

_{(Edited to fix some of my grammar)}

 

[Mark Deardorff]

As an engineering student at USC, in the thick of Hollywood 70's hype, I watched Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome. Wilford Brimley, before his oatmeal days, played the company guy taking Lemmon down. I shook my head. The shoe being on the other foot as those making the claims (generally the anti-establishment camp) were the reactionaries whereas Science found itself being pilloried.

 

[mfb]

Now, if something goes wrong, really wrong, with a nuclear plant, you are probably forfeiting a lot of money but most importantly a chunk of your land. For a long time. We are talking future generation time here. (Or have they already started rebuilding in the Chernobyl area?)
If something goes wrong with a traditional fossil fuel plant you affect only the current generation and for a limited amount of time.

Land use for coal mines in Germany alone is similar to the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. And this is only counting regions that are still wasteland today.
Jharia in India has 400,000 residents in danger because of a coal mine fire that started in 1916. That is not a typo, the fire has been burning for more than 100 years. The area has been inhospitable by Western standards for decades.
Centralia, Pennsylvania became a ghost town, it has a coal mine fire that has been burning since 1962.
And many more, most of them started by humans, although a few are natural.

Brennender Berg has a coal fire humans started in 1688, but luckily without danger to the population.

Nuclear accidents can render some area inhospitable for quite a long time, but coal mining accidents do that as well, and for surface coal mining it is the design operation to produce wasteland. Yes you can renaturalize the mined areas (if there is no fire), but for the same price you can also remove the whole radioactive surface layer in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and store it somewhere safely.

 

[bhobba]

IMHO it has nothing to do with education about nuclear power.

Its an education issue all right - but one of understanding risk.

Take a look at the anti-vaccers. The risk is minuscule and the benefits incalculable - yet they eschew it. I asked one would they drive their child to school if it was too far to walk? Of course. You realize the risk of vaccination, nuclear power plant disaster (from properly designed and managed modern ones) is less, in fact a lot less than the chances of dying while driving to school. It had zero effect on their view - they simply do not understand risk - that's all it is.

I have IBS and tight pelvic muscles (36% of people with IBS have that as well) that causes me all sorts of problems. Studies show I have a slightly lower risk of Bowel cancer than those that don't have it. The recommended action, and agreed by my doctor is to watch for so called red flags (blood coming out etrc etc) before getting things like colonoscopy's done. I had one a few years ago now - all clear which reduces my risk even further. Yet many people say (not doctors) get a colonoscopy - again no understanding of risk. There is a 1 in 350 chance of serious complication from a colonoscopy, although its reduced if you see a well trained colonoscopist. The risk vs reward is not there right now - it may be in the future - but not now.

Again people simply do not understand risk.

Thanks
Bill

 

[MattRob]

I'm not sure, but I thought I mentioned it before: the waste disposal issue is a political fiction. People have been trained to believe that because the waste is dangerous, that is a problem, but it is far safer to have dangerous waste in solid or liquid form - so you can control and store it - than in gaseous form - so you can't.

The US doesn't have a centralized storage facility, which is fine for now - the waste is fine stored on site.

Politics like this really, really disgusts me sometimes.

We have a power source that is, to the first order, literally millions of times better than coal, natural gas, or even anything else.

It is by far the safest form of power we, as humans, have ever devised, and the numbers on it are straightforward, unambiguous, and undebatable, the bottom line is it is safer:

It is also the among the cheapest sources of power, only a close second to hydro-electric dams, but it beats coal, natural gas, wind, and solar:

http://library.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/default/files/Total%20Cost%20of%20Electricity%20Production%20per%20kWh.JPG

From hereAnd issues with waste disposal is, as Rus Watters put it, a media fiction. I've toured nuclear powerplants before and the matter is simple; they simply put spent fuel rods in the same tank as the reactor. Granted, it was a small, experimental reactor, things are probably different for big powerplants (and plants where the reactor doesn't sit below ground level), but I was completely shocked when I saw what a non-issue it is. You can of course, also simply put it in solid drums and store it underground somewhere. I've seen the media pretend there's issues with it leaking into the water supply, but you should be more worried about being eaten by Bigfoot - that doesn't happen and it's not an issue unless you're a complete idiot. It has some stellarly low chance of happening if you just literally dumped the spent fuel on the ground, maybe. But just like we know not to drink the gasoline we put in our cars, and to drive on the right side of the road, we can handle things safely if we aren't stupid. Put it in drums, inspect the drums every so often. Problem solved.

Though I'm very much willing to bet a hundred times as many people die from drinking gasoline on accident and without question thousands of times more people die from driving on the wrong side of the road than the small number of people who have ever died from nuclear power. Honestly you should be more worried about dying from all these wind farms they keep making - those kill in-between about twice to four times as many people per kWh as nuclear does, depending on your source.
There is no debate. Not unless you're refusing to be reasonable, or are intentionally making stupid decisions that benefit yourself and hurt the rest of mankind. Nuclear is the best source of power, and it is wrong that anyone would think otherwise. I think people who perpetuate this nonsense are owed the same respect as anti-vaccers, and people who say the Earth is 7,000 years old and flat.

The only reason you could ever make such a monumentally wrong decision as to oppose nuclear is if you're not being reasonable. You had might as well make that 80-hour drive to that vacation across the country without stopping to rest and while drunk as opposed to taking a plane because "flying is dangerous".

...I have opinions.

Or, facts, rather.

 

[bhobba]

It is by far the safest form of power we, as humans, have ever devised, and the numbers on it are straightforward, unambiguous, and undebatable, the bottom line is it is safer:

All true - but because people do not understand risk facts like this have zero impact.

Before tackling this important issue we need to get people to understand basic risk vs reward. Once you do its a no brainer - but the average person has no idea about risk.

I sometimes think basic actuarial science should be taught at school. The fact its about money hopefully will make them interested and they will understand risk a lot better.

Thanks
Bill