Fuel cells:electricity or hydrogen powered

[bobbobwhite]

The new Honda fuel cell car is out and I am confused. There are now gas cars, electric cars, hybrids, and now hydrogen-to-electricity(fuel cell) cars. I always thought that fuel cell tech was basically filters that produced combustible H from H2O, and after combustion rejoined the combustion products with the oxygen molecules to form water as the waste product. I thought that the only major difference in the concept of an H engine and a gas engine was the fuel used, along with a smaller and specificly reformed engine for H due to the per volume power difference between gas and H.

The Honda vehicle makes what is an electric car fueled by hydrogen that is bought at a pump, just like we now do with gas. That seems to be a step back or at most a bridge to actual vehicle self-contained, fuel cell production of H. And, isn't stopping to fill up what we are trying to make obsolete? How does H to electricity as propellant constitute an improved answer over burning vehicle self-produced hydrogen in a form of combustion engine? Is not the waste product the same water and no CO2?

And, aren't we still trying to bring mainstream what was discovered way back in 1837...making propellant power out of water?

Informed answers would be appreciated.

 

[LURCH]

I think you may have been confused between fuel-cell technology and hydrogen burning technology. Fuel-cells put hydrogen in proximety with oxygen, with a conducting membrane in between. As the hydrogen passes through the membrane to get to the oxygen, only the hydrogen nuclius can go straight through; the electron gets caught in the conducting membrane and has to take "the long way around" to get through the membrane. Along the way, this electron is used to do work.

This is very different from hydrogen combustion, which simply put hydrogen in proximity to oxygen, and then throws in a match. The resulting explosion is used the same way exploding gasoline is used in most of today's vehicles.

The advantage of hydrogen combustion is that it is a simple internal combustion system and work some principles nearly identical to those used in vehicles today. The technology is very familiar.

The advantage of the fuel-cell is that it is a far more efficient reaction. I don't know the exact ratio, but the same amount of hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel-cell vehicle will propel that vehicle many times farther than it would with an internal combustion engine.

The idea behind both of these technologies is not to "do away with" pulling up to a pump to refuel your car. The idea is to do it with petroleum fuel, or other forms of fossil fuel.

 

[bobbobwhite]

I guess what we will have is an electric car

Thanks for your response. So, what it seems we will have then with fuel cell tech as an end product is a car powered by an electric motor which itself is powered by the product of the fuel cell, which is H. If an electric car is the most efficient use of H, then perhaps the ultimate vehicle power solution can be considered done, or maybe not? Will all power sources found still power the same electric motor for propulsion? Maybe that's the weak link. Comments?

In your opinion, is an electric car fueled by hydrogen considered to be the best end solution to vehicle propulsion and no emissions, or is there even a more efficient way of using H or even common H2O as a power source as has been rumored for many decades if not centuries? Or, even another form of use of magnetism, which is the primary concept in the operation of electric motors. Seems it will be hard to get away from electric motors.

Thank you again. Or any informed person who wishes to respond.

 

[jambaugh]

... In your opinion, is an electric car fueled by hydrogen considered to be the best end solution to vehicle propulsion and no emissions, or is there even a more efficient way of using H or even common H2O as a power source as has been rumored for many decades if not centuries? Or, even another form of use of magnetism, which is the primary concept in the operation of electric motors. Seems it will be hard to get away from electric motors.

Thank you again. Or any informed person who wishes to respond.

You still seem a bit confused with regard to source of energy. The fuel cell takes the chemical energy from the hydrogen and converts it to electrical energy which turns the electric motor.

H2 is a power source but H20 is not it is rather the waste product from burning H2 (either in an engine or using a fuel cell). Magnetism in and of itself isn't a source of energy but a mechanism for converting electrical energy to mechanical energy as in the typical motor.

Let me clarify a fuel cell further. Let's make a simple battery. Stick a strip of zinc in a water based electrolyte and also a pencil lead (carbon electrode) and wire each to an electric motor. The zinc will oxidize (the oxygen in the water of the electrolyte) producing electricity which turns the motor.

Note that the energy from this battery came originally from the process of refining that zinc (probably reduction with carbon from coal or oil). So even if you're using a battery you're burning fossil fuel in a sense.

Now consider one of those new Zinc-Air batteries. The oxygen used to oxidize the zinc comes from the air and not the electrolyte. (It has the advantage that you don't need to carry the weight of that oxygen as water and you get more energy per weight.)

Now consider a hydrogen fuel cell. It is just like the Zinc-Air battery except that it uses Hydrogen and not Zinc. But here's the problem. The be$t way to get hydrogen is from fossil fuels... specifically it is usually produced from natural gas. However if we can build more nuclear power plants (and/or wind and/or solar and/or crack the fusion power problem) and/or if the price of fossil fuel goes up high enough then the price of non-fossil fuel electricity would be low enough where electrolyzing water to get hydrogen would be cheaper than getting it from fossil fuels.

(A lot of "if"s here but also a lot of "or" so its worthwhile exploring each and all.)

But hydrogen may not be the best way to store electricity. There are other types of fuel cells possible [See final note below] and there is also the regular ole rechargeable battery.

I personally think that new battery tech will likely be the solution to automotive energy storage.

What hydrogen fuel does for us right now is help local emissions problems like in the LA basin where the exhaust gets trapped. But we are a long way yet from independence from fossil fuels even if everyone drove electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars tomorrow. At best these along with hybrids provide means of more efficiently using the original fuel.

One final note: I recently ran across mention of the Liquid Tin Anode Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (LTA-SOFC) which can burn almost "anything".
http://www.celltechpower.com/technology.htm"
It isn't likely to be used in cars anytime soon but potentially it could replace the steam turbine power plants and indeed allow people to electrify their house off of piped gas or fuel oil or even lawn trimmings. Its high temp and size probably won't let it be practical for personal automobiles but I could see it used on trains or maybe eventually in larger trucks.

The key idea is that tin oxide is reduced by the fuel and the tin is then oxidized in the solid electrolyte fuel cell. Its pretty neat IMNSHO!

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Very generous explanation. Thank you. Candu reactors? Low grade uranium. Nothing even close to weapons grade. Used all over the world. Good track record. What then?

 

[russ_watters]

Just to highlight the main points there:

-Fuel cells that run on hydrogen extracted from water are just batteries.
-Fuel cells that run on hydrogen extracted from methane (or methane itself) are fossil fuel burners.
-Heat engines (engines that use the heat of combustion to drive the car) can only be around 40% efficient.
-Electric motors run around 95% efficient.
-Batteries are upwards of 90% efficient.
-Fuel cells are 50-80% efficient.

So the bottom line is that at the car, by far the best way to power the wheels is with an electric motor. The best way to power the electric motor is also still an open question (batteries or fuel cells?). And we must remember that if the goal here is to get off fossil fuel, we need an overhaul of our electric power generation systems. They need to be entirely non-fossil fuel. Right now, the US gets roughly 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Russ,
As I see it, nuclear is the way to go. but the Canadian nuclear , CANDU , is much better than the ones we're building. My problem with nuclear is that I don't trust people to run them safely. People have that attitude about being sloppy. I don't know what it is. It's human nature to screw up. They'll do almost anything for money. our credo has to change, I guess. I know my credo sucks.
I like the idea of using intermediate steps to get away from fossil fuel. Off the shelf technology. We should get our ideas from the countries that are really suffering with the energy crisis. Sorry my dog is barking. out.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Oh, Russ,
Excellent post. Focused me right up. Thanks.

 

[mgb_phys]

Candu reactors? Low grade uranium. Nothing even close to weapons grade.

In fact one great use for Candus is to burn weapons grade U and even Pu that is left over form weapons programs. It's the safest way to dispose of it.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Is there a reason that we're not building them here? Also if Iran was constrained to use CANDUs, they wouldn't have to get any real % of 235. What's the deal.

 

[mgb_phys]

Candu do produce waste which contains Pu, you can process this to extract the Pu.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there a reason that we're not building them here?

Politics.

 

[vanesch]

In fact one great use for Candus is to burn weapons grade U and even Pu that is left over form weapons programs. It's the safest way to dispose of it.

CANDU reactors have nothing special about this. A CANDU reactor is a moderated (thermal, not fast) reactor using heavy water, meaning one can use natural uranium if one wants to (was the original motivation), but one actually uses slightly enriched uranium to use the fuel more efficiently. A LWR (light water reactor) needs slightly enriched uranium, because it can't work on natural uranium. Both can work on plutonium, but both use it badly.

Turning weapon-grade uranium into something safer is extremely easy: remix it with depleted uranium (it was separated from) and make, to your liking, again natural uranium or slightly enriched uranium - smartest move is the last of course, you can use it in any type of thermal reactor.

Best way of using weapon grade plutonium... mix it again with depleted uranium, to make MOX fuel - however, this stuff can be separated again using chemistry. Eventually, mix it with reactor-grade plutonium, to decrease its weapon-usability (although all plutonium apart from Pu-238 is weapon-usable, the easiest is Pu-239 in high purity, which is called weapon-grade).

Most efficient way to use plutonium and depleted uranium: use it in a fast sodium reactor. You win a hundred-fold in fuel efficiency. However, these research programs have had a lot of stupid political opposition in the last decades, which means we're not ready yet to build a large park of fast reactors.

Concerning proliferation, in fact a LWR is better than a CANDU, because a CANDU is build in such a way that one can continuously refuel it, which makes it suitable as a plutonium production reactor if you want to use it that way. With a LWR reactor, that's way harder, as you have to open up the pressure vessel each time. So you will get out reactor-grade plutonium instead of weapon-grade plutonium. Warning: also reactor grade plutonium can be used for a weapon, but it is more difficult. This is if the reactor is in a sensitive place, where it could be misused. A reactor in a safe place is not an issue (you don't sneak in some uranium for plutonium production without anyone knowing at the plant).

 

[vanesch]

Is there a reason that we're not building them here? Also if Iran was constrained to use CANDUs, they wouldn't have to get any real % of 235. What's the deal.

The Iran issue is different. But we're getting way off topic here.
These are the elements: As Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation-Treaty, it obtained the unalienable right to use all kinds of peaceful nuclear technology, including enrichment and fuel reprocessing. The counter side is that Iran has to declare all nuclear activities to the IAEA and not have a military nuclear program. Iran has been found faulty with its declarations to the IAEA in the past, and there is strong suspicion that they want a military nuclear program.

The safest way to handle Iran would be (but there's no legal basis for that) to require them to use LWR, and sell them the low-enriched uranium fuel, and take back the spend fuel. As such, they would have nuclear power, and not have any suspicious technology (the bookkeeping can be done on the fuel). Of course, that would make Iran dependent on other nations to sell them their fuel, but it would be the only way to be sure that they don't use the civil nuclear power for military purposes. That wouldn't stop them of course from having a separate military program, hidden from the rest of the world.

If Iran had CANDU's, it could use it to produce plutonium, and as it could work on natural uranium, the bookkeeping would be more difficult (who says that there hasn't been used more natural uranium than they say ?). LWR are safer in that respect: they need LEU (lightly enriched uranium), they can't easily be refueled and one can do more easily the bookkeeping of the fuel elements that way.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

VANESCH,
Thank you for the response. I understand what you're saying. From a purely scientific point of view, is a CANDU a better machine than LWR?

 

[shamrock5585]

we do need to switch to nuclear energy as our source power plants... atleast until we can harness the energy of fusion technology. people are far too affraid of nuclear power because of incidents in the past... Everything is dangerous unless it is respected... we must regulate everything. Natural gas used to be very dangerous as well because people did not respect it enough or know enough about it... now that we know much more about nuclear technology we can regulate how it is handled and make it much safer.

 

[mgb_phys]

From a purely scientific point of view, is a CANDU a better machine than LWR?

It's less thermally efficient, it runs at a lower temperature, and recovers less of the energy from the fuel - although the fuel is reused in a fuel cycle and it can efficently burn used LWR fuel. The core is larger so it's expensive to build and the heavy water isn't cheap, but you don't need an enrichment plant. It's also proven a very safe and conservative design.

Probably the biggest advantage is that it's relatively simple and easy to build, especially because you don't need a huge pressure vessel. It looks like the capacity of the one plant in the world to produce reactor pressure vessel forgings is going to be a limit for other designs.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

It looks like the capacity of the one plant in the world to produce reactor pressure vessel forgings is going to be a limit for other designs.[/QUOTE]

What plant? What other designs? Other designs instead of what? Explain, please.

 

[vanesch]

VANESCH,
Thank you for the response. I understand what you're saying. From a purely scientific point of view, is a CANDU a better machine than LWR?

I wouldn't say so, although a CANDU reactor has certain advantages but also some problems.
I would add a few comments to mgb_phys' post.
Concerning thermal efficiency, I'm surprised: I thought that the CANDU outlet temperature was about 310 degrees, as is that of a PWR.

The main original advantage of a CANDU was the fact that it could run on natural uranium, but the problem is that you can *hardly* have any burnup with natural uranium: from the moment that you deplete it a bit, you loose criticality. Hence now CANDU's run on LEU, just like LWR. Of course, thanks to the heavy water, they can run down the fuel more than can a LWR, so I guess that with LEU they have a slightly higher fuel efficiency than a LWR.

The main disadvantage is the heavy water. It is not only costly, it is also tritium-producing. So the primary water is much more active than the primary water of a LWR. Now, if there's a market for the tritium, that can be an advantage of course.

Concerning safety, it is sure a safe design - although I don't know how it compares to say, an EPR. The CANDU reactor is by now a pretty old design after all.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

You know, the way I think sometimes we don't need to be testing new reactor designs in the field, if you know what I mean. We need safe energy now. Other countries have been using them for years without problems. I'd say jump into the pool and ramp up the knowledge curve. Opinions?

 

[mgb_phys]

From the NEI report to congress March 2008.
"The ultra-heavy forgings for reactor pressure vessels and steam generators constitute the most significant chokepoint. Japan Steel Works (JSW) is currently the only company worldwide with the capacity to make ultra-large forgings"
There is also a problem hiring high quality welders - especially since they are also in big demand in the oil industry.

I thought the point of an AGR was to run at much higher temperature than a LWR and i thought Candu ran at even lower temperature - but I don't have any personal experience.
As vanesch said Candu was built to run on raw uranium but it doesn't extract as much of the energy as more enriched fuel reactors - the used fuel still has more available fissile material in it. It does have a big advantage that it can burn waste from other reactors that is too depleted for them to use. I don't know if it is economic to run only Candu or wether the best scheme is to run leu and use a few Candus to use their waste.

The problem with most of the reactor designs at least in the USA/UK was that the first ones (50s,60s) were really aimed at weapons (either Pu/H3 generation or research) then in the 80s there was a whole spray of different new designs so that each station was basically a research project. And since the regulatory process and approval to build them took a decade they were all obsolete before construction began.
Only France seems to have taken the path of building standard desgns aimed at reliable power production and it is now probably the front runner in building the UKs new stations.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

That is a shocking wake up call. We can't make the castings? This was a great post. I have to look into this. Thank you very much!

 

[mgb_phys]

That is a shocking wake up call. We can't make the castings?

Why would a private company keep the plant capacity to make something that they might get some orders in 20years time?
We subsidise aircraft makers and shipyards to preserve capabilites for defence applications - but heavy industry must have forgot to lobby the politicians to the same extent.

 

[vanesch]

I can be wrong - maybe they outsource this - but I thought that the French Framatome was also capable of making pressure vessels (from the Areva group).

 

[mgb_phys]

Areva are the other big makers but they are probably pretty comitted building France's stations.
Of course that was the original design idea of the Candu - Canada didn't have anyone to build large pressure vessels so invented a reacotr without one!

 

[vanesch]

The problem with most of the reactor designs at least in the USA/UK was that the first ones (50s,60s) were really aimed at weapons (either Pu/H3 generation or research) then in the 80s there was a whole spray of different new designs so that each station was basically a research project. And since the regulatory process and approval to build them took a decade they were all obsolete before construction began.
Only France seems to have taken the path of building standard desgns aimed at reliable power production and it is now probably the front runner in building the UKs new stations.

This is very true. I heard the joke that the US has one kind of cheese, and 100 types of reactors, while the French have 100 kinds of cheese, and one type of reactor

Maybe the reason is also that France had only one state utility (EDF), while different utilities in the US all wanted *their* development.

That said, I think that one will have to enter a new phase of research and development, especially on the side of the fast reactors - while still running on the experience of LWR and other established designs for a few decades. One shouldn't go too fast with it: fast reactors are a whole different world than thermal reactors. The principles are known, but from knowing the principles and having had a few prototypes to a safe and reliable park of power reactors is still a step that needs to be carefully taken, or one might bitterly regret it.
Really really too bad this research and development was halted for stupid political reasons.

As to the point of lost knowhow and so on, I think the main difficulty will be the welders. Welding the stainless steel skin on the inside of the construction steel of the vessel is a delicate procedure and I don't know if there are still a lot of people around that know how to do this.

 

[bobbobwhite]

This talk about nuclear energy...I read a science article that stated if the world builds many reactors for total necessary energy supply and then, due to global warming elements already/subsequently released, humans are eradicated and thus not around to control all those reactors, the world would then be rapidly stripped of life due to overheating of the reactors and the resulting total melt downs which would release massive radiation, and the living natural world as it was for billions of years would end, and possibly another Mars would be the result.

Is that end consequence, if probable or even possible, enough to control man from building these Earth doomsday machines and looking for an earth-friendly solution instead? Isn't fusion the best of all ways to go? There is a better way if we look for it, or does man only care about the Earth when he is on it? Like the idiotic, human egocentric statement..."if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" I cannot think of anything ever said that is less caring or more stupid and selfish than that.

Bad life philosophy in the minds of power leads to bad life consequences for every living thing, always, every time.

Nuclear reactors sadly remind me of the tale Michael More told in one of his movies about the murdering capitalist who negotiated the best price for the rope used to hang him. What is really gained if all is lost?

 

[vanesch]

This talk about nuclear energy...I read a science article that stated if the world builds many reactors for total necessary energy supply and then, due to global warming elements already/subsequently released, humans are eradicated and thus not around to control all those reactors, the world would then be rapidly stripped of life due to overheating of the reactors and the resulting total melt downs which would release massive radiation, and the living natural world as it was for billions of years would end, and possibly another Mars would be the result.

The only thing that is wrong in your statement is "science" article, because even if we have a thousand Chernobyls, life will absolutely not be eradicated. In fact, the ecological niche around Chernobyl is thriving, due to less human intervention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

But second, even shut down power plants left unattended will NOT turn into a Chernobyl.

The reason why animals are less disturbed than humans by radiation is that they are insensitive to fear mongering.

That said, honestly, if humans disappear, what duty do they have to "preserve the Earth after them" ? In other words, if they have to risk their own well-being (and even their extinction) just for the hypothetical well-being of whatever will evolve after that, would that be an intelligent move ? Should we take the risk of sacrificing humanity just for the sake of the giant ants that will come ?

Is that end consequence, if probable or even possible, enough to control man from building these Earth doomsday machines and looking for an earth-friendly solution instead? Isn't fusion the best of all ways to go? There is a better way if we look for it, or does man only care about the Earth when he is on it?

My answer to that would be: duh, of course! What would Earth mean to humans without humans ?

In fact, the most life-threatening agent on Earth is humanity. So taking your logic to the extreme, the best chance for (non-human) life to continue to exist on Earth is to eradicate immediately all humans. Indeed, man has shown time after time to be able to destroy habitats, and he's getting smarter and smarter and more powerful. Even if he would become wiser today, there's no guarantee that he will not take up his bad habits in the future. So, just as we should close down all nuclear reactors, as they might harm the giant ants in the future, we should kill all humans before it is too late. That can be done by developing a narrowly targeted contagious and deadly pathogen, which doesn't affect others, but which kills humans (and maybe a few monkeys) in days. So, according to you, should we hurry up to develop this and eradicate humanity, for the sake of the giant ants ?

As to fusion, wind, solar, etc... all these are nice technologies, and should of course be looked into. But at the end of the day, we will have to use a technology that really works, and most of these technologies are, as someone wrote it, "unobtainium". We simply don't have the technology, in the next twenty years, to replace all fossil fuel burning by fusion (because it doesn't exist yet), or solar and wind, because the installations are as of now too big, too expensive, and too unreliable. The only technology we KNOW how to make right now, and which CAN make a difference, is nuclear. That shouldn't stop you from looking into promising alternatives in the future, but if you really have to make sure that everybody gets enough electricity in a reliable way, there's no real choice.

Planning to have 70% electricity production of a country by wind and solar 20 years from now is an inexecutable plan. Planning to have 70% electricity production of a country by nuclear in 20 years has been done by France.

 

[bobbobwhite]

All you say is just your opinion

not fact. You say it won't, but you don't know a whit about whether 500-1000-20,000 or whatever number we "smart" humans deem the right amount of nuclear reactors would not ruin the Earth if melted down. Science says it will. You say no. I trust science more so science wins, you lose.

Also, your ridiculous example of "giant ants" are certainly not the only things on the Earth besides humans that could live on after a global nuclear meltdown...think "underground'. Here is a truth for you...humans are such a tiny fraction of the Earth's total biomass as to be nearly a non-entity and totally unnecessary for anything relative to Earth's energy recyling needs. The Earth would not even notice, in its recycling of the sun's energy, if we humans were here on Earth or not. Termites alone(!) have over 20,000 times the biomass of all humans on Earth and there are thousands of other insect species almost as numerous, such as ants. But, all that is very old news to bio-science. Maybe you should study that for a while to learn what may really happen, and not just opine on the matter as if that were the truth. The truth is, no one knows for absolute sure, not even science.

And, from your writing, you seem to be one of the growing number of human-centric, ultra-selfish hubrists who thinks the Earth is only important as it relates to the humans on it? My god, man, you need to get a cosmic heart and a universal philosophy for something other than yourself, and even maybe get a bit of religion? Humans are such a tiny part of anything alive as to be universally inconsequential except to our own selfish, resource squandering selves.

Yes, of course, as with you my life is very important to me, but I am thankfully a cosmic idealist who would relinquish it in a second if I could trade my puny being for the promise of an unspoiled Earth just as it was millions of years ago before the plague of humanity, not that this is possible and, yes, I admit it is easy for me to say as I won't get the chance to prove it. But, I would do it in a heartbeat, as that is how much human Earth damage has affected me.

And, I'd also it trade for just one space trip outside our universe to see what is really "there". That would be one life fully lived, trust me on that.

 

[vanesch]

not fact. You say it won't, but you don't know a whit about whether 500-1000-20,000 or whatever number we "smart" humans deem the right amount of nuclear reactors would not ruin the Earth if melted down. Science says it will. You say no. I trust science more so science wins, you lose.

It isn't sufficient to say "science says" just for this to be so. Show me a peer-reviewed scientific publication in which it is shown (as you claim) that 1) 1000 reactors, when shut down, will melt down and 2) that such meltdowns will exterminate life on earth. THAT is what it means: "science says": to show a publication for it.

The BBC article I quoted shows that the very worst kind of fuel dispersal which we witnessed at Chernobyl (it can't get worse) doesn't seem to ultimately destroy the ecosystem in the 30 km range around it - on the contrary ! The fear of radiation has chased away the humans, and this absence is much more advantageous to the ecosystem than the very slight disadvantage of having a somewhat higher background radiation.

Now, that's a 30 km radius, which corresponds to ~3000 square km.
The Earth's land surface is 150 000 000 square km (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth ). That means that if 1000 reactors would undergo a Chernobyl disaster (which they won't), this would at most affect 3 000 000 square km, or about 2% of Earth's land surface, and all that would then turn into an ecosystem as observed around Chernobyl. Not directly something that is comparable to a "total extinction of life on earth".

So any 'scientific' claim that 1000 reactors will extinct life as we know it on earth, will have to explain how we get around these numbers.

Also, your ridiculous example of "giant ants" are certainly not the only things on the Earth besides humans that could live on after a global nuclear meltdown...think "underground'. Here is a truth for you...humans are such a tiny fraction of the Earth's total biomass as to be nearly a non-entity and totally unnecessary for anything relative to Earth's energy recyling needs. The Earth would not even notice, in its recycling of the sun's energy, if we humans were here on Earth or not.

What´s your point in comparing human biomass to the rest ?

Termites alone(!) have over 20,000 times the biomass of all humans on Earth and there are thousands of other insect species almost as numerous, such as ants. But, all that is very old news to bio-science. Maybe you should study that for a while to learn what may really happen, and not just opine on the matter as if that were the truth. The truth is, no one knows for absolute sure, not even science.

Plankton has even a bigger biomass. So ? Although you are right that one cannot know with absolute truth anything in fact, the scientific approach is to build upon what we know to what we can expect. What we know is that the worst possible imaginable accident that could happen to a power plant is the Chernobyl accident, which is not a meltdown, but an uncontrolled power excursion in an unprotected reactor, followed by a fire that last for several days because it was a graphite reactor. A meltdown in a modern power plant is a way way less problematic event. So we can very safely state that Chernobyl is an extremely conservative upper limit to what can happen to a power plant. The reason is that we have no other "reasonable" upper limit, as the next one in the row, a genuine meltdown at Three Miles Island, was a non-event where nothing really happened outside of the reactor building. The point is important, because the power excursion, the fire and the carbon, as well as the absence of confinement building, made for a much larger spread of radioactive materials in the atmosphere than could reasonably be expected at a modern power plant. So, again, taking Chernobyl as a model is a very very severe overestimate of the real consequences of a power reactor.

So 1000 reactors can AT MOST be 1000 Chernobyl accidents, and the numbers above show that this is by far not able to exterminate life on earth. What more can science do ?

So how can one claim a scientific basis for the opposite claim ? I could just as well say that science has shown that if we build to much windmills we would cause a global storm that would blow away all life from earth, and if you have a counter argument, well, science does contradict you, and even if it didn't we can't be sure ever.

And, from your writing, you seem to be one of the growing number of human-centric, ultra-selfish hubrists who thinks the Earth is only important as it relates to the humans on it? My god, man, you need to get a cosmic heart and a universal philosophy for something other than yourself, and even maybe get a bit of religion? Humans are such a tiny part of anything alive as to be universally inconsequential except to our own selfish, resource squandering selves.

Indeed, I do not give a damn for Earth without humans on it. The reason of the importance of Earth is that it is the current support for humanity. The day that humanity can be independent of earth, Earth doesn´t matter much anymore (except maybe as a kind of museum).

But I repeat my question to you: if you deem "biomass" more important than humanity, and, as you say yourself, for Gaia, it doesn't matter much about this single species of humans, which can at most harm her, why aren't you then for a quick, targeted and total extermination of humanity ? (or maybe you are ? )

Yes, of course, as with you my life is very important to me, but I am thankfully a cosmic idealist who would relinquish it in a second if I could trade my puny being for the promise of an unspoiled Earth just as it was millions of years ago before the plague of humanity, not that this is possible and, yes, I admit it is easy for me to say as I won't get the chance to prove it. But, I would do it in a heartbeat, as that is how much human Earth damage has affected me.
And, I'd also it trade for just one space trip outside our universe to see what is really "there". That would be one life fully lived, trust me on that.

"A space trip outside of our universe" ...

 

[bobbobwhite]

Meltdowns and results

What you continually fail to understand is that if humans die off at a time when nuclear reactors are providing all of the world's power, all electricity would soon stop, thus all cooling pumps and water pumps would stop and water supply to the rods would stop, and all already present water surrounding the rods would soon evaporate, then the rods would overheat and melt down uncontrolled...then the real fun starts. And we would not be there to remediate anything happening from that point on.

Not counting what terrible things would happen when 20,000 or whatever amount of total reactor sets of rods melt down deep into the Earth's core, we would then have the uncontrolled, remember we are all dead so we cannot control anything, emission of massive readioactivity worldwide. How many years of dissipation before life could possibly return? Who knows, maybe hundreds, depends on the total of all reactors, locations, etc. But, perhaps more years than anything could survive, even underground. Thus, everything now living would be permanently eliminated, even your giant ants. No oxygen, no light, no food, no life supporting climate, no water(boiled off), no life... another Mars.

I am truly sorry that I entered into this discussion with someone who only cares about this Earth as it relates to the humans on it. What a miniscule perspective that is. This is our true and permanent divide, and the real reason we could never agree on anything in a similar way as it relates to Earth and the fatal damage only its human inhabitants have irreversibly done to it, so I will stop trying. The tipping point of that cumulative damage has already passed, and you just don't realize that you are still trying hard, but ineffectively, to get the highest price for your piece of rope.

 

[shamrock5585]

hey bobbowhite i think you strongly underestimate our technology in the first place... if there is no technicians around to run the reactor it will shut itself down anyway... Chernobyl is extremely dated... we have these things called regulations now... and i respect your care for animals and the planet but realistically Earth and animals don't mean anything to us... do you really care for that cow while you eat it and then have its daughter (veal) right after? and care for those termites that eat your house... all humanity cares about is intelligence (the greatest thing we know) and survival (and of course you can throw all sorts of politics in there to cloud things up but you get the picture) ... Earth and animals are vital to our survival and that's the only real reason why we care about them in the end. argue if you may... but when the end of the world comes will you save your sister, brother or animals... humanity always come first!

 

[vanesch]

What you continually fail to understand is that if humans die off at a time when nuclear reactors are providing all of the world's power, all electricity would soon stop, thus all cooling pumps and water pumps would stop and water supply to the rods would stop, and all already present water surrounding the rods would soon evaporate, then the rods would overheat and melt down uncontrolled...then the real fun starts. And we would not be there to remediate anything happening from that point on.

Yes, and the upper limit of what can happen there, is a major fire driven by a WORKING REACTOR for several days, sending a serious fraction of its contents kilometer-high in the atmosphere... well, THAT was Chernobyl. As I said, it won't, because the reactor will NOT BE WORKING whenever this happens, there is the confinement building which, even if it leaks, will not allow for the radioactive stuff to get high up in the atmosphere but it will just leak out locally etc...

Also, most modern designs are passively cooled. For instance, the power plant I know best, the French 1300 MW system (not even the latest) doesn't need active pumping for the core to cool. (of course, it will need some cooling of the secondary circuit). Usually, diesel generators will start up and will provide for the needed electricity for a few more weeks after the day and hour everybody has suddenly dropped dead according to your bizarre scenario.

So the fuel we are talking about has already lost most of its extremely active components. Yes, it still generates heat, yes it will finally end up evaporating all water, yes, it might even start some kind of fire (although I'm not even sure about that: I'm not sure that the temperature of the unattended rods, after a few weeks of cooling, will reach more than 2000 degrees under passive air cooling). But it will in no respect ressemble to Chernobyl. So IF I take Chernobyl, I'm using an OVERESTIMATION which will give you a conservative upper boundary to what can really happen, simply because for Chernobyl we have ACTUAL DATA.

Not counting what terrible things would happen when 20,000 or whatever amount of total reactor sets of rods melt down deep into the Earth's core, we would then have the uncontrolled, remember we are all dead so we cannot control anything, emission of massive readioactivity worldwide.

what reactor rods deep into the Earth's core ?? Are you taking the phantasy of the China Syndrome for real ? Unattended rods still generate some heat due to radioactive decay, not due to their "working". If they get spread out over a certain area, then they will just warm that surface a little bit.

I showed a quick estimate that if we had 1000 reactors (that would be about sufficient to cover our current world electricity consumption if they were all of the latest type, like EPR) ALL undergoing a Chernobyl disaster, that this would not affect life in the slightest bit. It would turn about 2% of Earth's surface into a zone comparable to the 30 km zone around Chernobyl (left unattended, remind you!), where life is thriving. And then, they WON'T undergo a Chernobyl type of accident.

So what makes you think that this would ruin life on Earth ?

How many years of dissipation before life could possibly return? Who knows, maybe hundreds, depends on the total of all reactors, locations, etc. But, perhaps more years than anything could survive, even underground. Thus, everything now living would be permanently eliminated, even your giant ants. No oxygen, no light, no food, no life supporting climate, no water(boiled off), no life... another Mars.

All this because of 1000 reactors ? Where do you get these totally erroneous ideas ?

Again, EVEN if 1000 reactors underwent 1000 Chernobyls (and they won't), this would by far not happen. So on what do you base your argument ?

And on what do you base your argument that people will all together, drop dead on the same day ?

So you complain about nuclear power (which, BTW, is the only thing that could seriously do something about global warming if that story turns out to be correct) because you make the statement that, if we rely on it, and:
1) hypothesis: all humans drop dead the same day

then these reactors will:
2) quickly start burning, make a hole in the ground, kill all life on Earth (or nearly so), no oxygen, no water, no food, no light (huh?), ...

Now, I showed you that EVEN accepting hypothesis 1), and EVEN assuming that they all undergo a Chernobyl (again, which they won't), nothing serious will actually happen to life on earth. Apart from some local and regional difficulties, nothing serious would even happen to humans (except that they would be so scared to get out or eat anything that they would indeed starve to death). So you are complaining about a totally impossible scenario, several times over. Nuclear reactors, even of the worst kind, CANNOT DAMAGE seriously life on earth.

If we are to have impossible scenarios I give you my favorite: we should immediately stop building windmills, because they will cause a global storm that is so terrible that it will blow all life, and even all the air, off the earth, into space ! There. That's even worse. So do you join my campaign against these terrible irresponsible people who want to put windmills everywhere ?

I am truly sorry that I entered into this discussion with someone who only cares about this Earth as it relates to the humans on it. What a miniscule perspective that is. This is our true and permanent divide, and the real reason we could never agree on anything in a similar way as it relates to Earth and the fatal damage only its human inhabitants have irreversibly done to it, so I will stop trying. The tipping point of that cumulative damage has already passed, and you just don't realize that you are still trying hard, but ineffectively, to get the highest price for your piece of rope.

This is a different discussion, which doesn't matter to the fallacies in your other argument. Now, I suppose that every morning, you mourn about the death of the dinosaurs, which underwent a far far far worse catastrophe than wicked manhood, even in its wildest dreams, could ever do to Earth ? How can you even face the light of the day knowing what terrible terrible thing happened to Gaia 65 million years ago ? And then, the Permean extinction, now that must be heart-breaking to you, no ? How can you live with that ?

But you still didn't answer my question: would you advocate a massive genocide of the human race (if we found a way that didn't perturb Gaia, like, say, a very targetted disease or something) in order to save "the living earth" ? (hint: it is a trick question)

 

[russ_watters]

not fact. You say it won't, but you don't know a whit about whether 500-1000-20,000 or whatever number we "smart" humans deem the right amount of nuclear reactors would not ruin the Earth if melted down. Science says it will. You say no. I trust science more so science wins, you lose.

Just to make sure we're clear here, bob - this site is home to several nuclear scientists and engineers (including vanesch) and many more scientists and engineers in related fields. So saying "science says so" isn't really worth anything when you are directly contradicting scientists!

You need to provide a reference for your claims. They don't sound scientific at all (ie, one is a reference to the China Syndrome, which has no basis in science - it was pure fiction and has never been a real possibility).

 

[vanesch]

Also, most modern designs are passively cooled. For instance, the power plant I know best, the French 1300 MW system (not even the latest) doesn't need active pumping for the core to cool. (of course, it will need some cooling of the secondary circuit). Usually, diesel generators will start up and will provide for the needed electricity for a few more weeks after the day and hour everybody has suddenly dropped dead according to your bizarre scenario.

Just to digress on this a bit, I'd like to explain how this passive cooling works. The primary circuit is set up such that under normal functioning, "cold" water of about 290 degrees enters the reactor vessel, flows downward externally of the core, and at the bottom, enters the core envelope, and rises through the core where it gets heated to about 310 degrees, and then go into 4 different circuits, leading to the so-called steam generators, mounted above the reactor vessel. There, secondary water is heated and converted into steam (it's lower pressure), and huge pumps (6 MW motors!) pump the primary water now back in the reactor vessel where the path starts all over.

This circuit is designed such, that if the power developed by the core is less than 10% of the nominal power (about 4 GW thermal), the passive flow (rising hot water into the steam generator etc...) is sufficient so that one doesn't need the big pumps. A shut-down reactor (and the slightest bit of problem in a nuclear power plant will automatically shut down the reactor by shutting off the electro-magnets that keep the emergency control rods suspended above the reactor, so that they passively FALL into the reactor and stop it) will drop below the 10% power level in a matter of seconds, and the inertia of the pumps has been designed such that they can pump still enough during this time even without electricity.

Now, once passive cooling removes all the excess heat from the core to the steam generator, one still needs water in the steam generator from the secondary circuit. Well, there are steam-driven turbo pumps in the secondary circuit, which can be driven by the steam of the steam generator. No need for electricity. (these are backup pumps: the normal way to operate is with electric pumps). However, there IS a need to cool the condenser of the secondary circuit (with river water for instance) and there, a pump is needed, although there is also a big reservoir that can cool the secondary circuit passively, although of course only during a finite amount of time, until all this water has vaporized away.

 

[bobbobwhite]

And, sarcastically, I am so sure that used car dealers have in their hearts the best interests of the people they sell cars to. By this example I am trying to show that as a diehard proponent of nuclear energy you obviously are going to state, along with facts, biased opinions and gross suppositions, unestablished theories and even wild hypotheses that serve to support your position, all the while naysaying any opposing point of view. I am so very sure that this is the same type of "reasoning" and "intelligence" behind Dubya's invasion of Iraq. Check out what crap has happened as a result of that smart move when you get a chance.

I am the first to admit that I do not know all the issues of nuclear energy, but I do know that massive amounts of electricity cannot now be stored, and electricity is the primary power that fundamentally runs all the plants of of any kind in the world. When that power source is no longer available, all plants including nuclear plants and what's inside will be no longer operate as they were intended, to whatever end, however long it takes if it is not immediate. It will definitely happen and that, my friend, is a fact. My example of all people dying at the same time was made to illustrate that if that catastrophe did ever happen, would we be able to contain the results of the first imploding then possibly exploding destruction of all of the nuclear reactors and the results of that Earth and climate destruction to humanity and the world? You say yes, but your one sided argument does not influence me much as I find it much smarter and more reasonable to continually question the rantings of zealots than to slavishly follow what they say to do without substantial and telling proof of their speculated outcome. Again, reference Dubya statement above.

Also, please don't compare natural Earth events(not "disasters", please) over millions and billions of years with much more recent manmade ones, as that is totally dumb and surely beneath you and also shows clearly the total distortion of facts I stated above that diehard proponents of anything highly controversial typically mouth endlessly.

Finally, are you willing to test your "theory" and perhaps your life by standing nearby then shutting down the electricity supply to a large reactor to see what actually would happen? Do you possibly know if a scale model of that scenario perhaps has been researched and documented, and if so I would like to scour the results of that test to see if they were done by qualified and impartial researchers at full arm's length, and not by any self serving nuclear energy commission, the Bush adminstration, or the likes of you.

 

[vanesch]

And, sarcastically, I am so sure that used car dealers have in their hearts the best interests of the people they sell cars to. By this example I am trying to show that as a diehard proponent of nuclear energy you obviously are going to state, along with facts, biased opinions and gross suppositions, unestablished theories and even wild hypotheses that serve to support your position, all the while naysaying any opposing point of view. I am so very sure that this is the same type of "reasoning" and "intelligence" behind Dubya's invasion of Iraq. Check out what crap has happened as a result of that smart move when you get a chance.

This is an argument that can be used against any position. If person A states statement P, then you can always say that because he states statement P, he's obviously a proponent of statement P, and he is obviously going to state, along with facts, biased opinions and gross suppositions, unestablished theories and even wild hypotheses that serve the position in statement P, all the while naysaying any opposing point of view.

In other words, if you are convinced that a person, because he maintains position P, which seems not to be in agreement with your preconceptions, must be making biased statements, then no argument is ever going to be possible with you. You can fill in for P, just any statement: "grass is green", "dinosaurs lived up to 65 million years ago", "the Earth turns around the sun", ... anything.

My statement P is that nuclear reactors, even a thousand of them, are not in any significant way, going to exterminate (or even come close) life on earth.

I illustrated it with some extremely simple estimations which you should be able to follow.

I am the first to admit that I do not know all the issues of nuclear energy, but I do know that massive amounts of electricity cannot now be stored, and electricity is the primary power that fundamentally runs all the plants of of any kind in the world. When that power source is no longer available, all plants including nuclear plants and what's inside will be no longer operate as they were intended, to whatever end, however long it takes if it is not immediate. It will definitely happen and that, my friend, is a fact. My example of all people dying at the same time was made to illustrate that if that catastrophe did ever happen, would we be able to contain the results of the first imploding then possibly exploding destruction of all of the nuclear reactors and the results of that Earth and climate destruction to humanity and the world? You say yes, but your one sided argument does not influence me much as I find it much smarter and more reasonable to continually question the rantings of zealots than to slavishly follow what they say to do without substantial and telling proof of their speculated outcome. Again, reference Dubya statement above.

In other words, whatever I say, if it doesn't fit with your preconceptions, you're going to continue sticking to your position, no matter what argument is put forward ? Do you find that an intelligent way to debate ?
BTW, with reference to the "car salesman", I don't work in the nuclear power industry.

Finally, are you willing to test your "theory" and perhaps your life by standing nearby then shutting down the electricity supply to a large reactor to see what actually would happen? Do you possibly know if a scale model of that scenario perhaps has been researched and documented, and if so I would like to scour the results of that test to see if they were done by qualified and impartial researchers at full arm's length, and not by any self serving nuclear energy commission, the Bush adminstration, or the likes of you.

Well, chances are that this is done by people working in the nuclear sector (by definition), so this is in any case going to be by "experts in the field", and hence, according to you, biased.

But there are two fallacies in your argument. The first one is that you seem to ignore totally the safety requirements for a modern nuclear power plant. A power cut is not only a possibility, it happens sometimes for real, and OF COURSE these scenarios have been studied, and studied over in all possible ways. EVERY MONTH at our research reactor we have an exercise of a power cut and overtaking by diesel generators. This is the minimum.

But the second fallacy in your argument is the following: you seem to put next to you the fact that nothing worse can happen than Chernobyl: having a serious portion of the reactor content sent high in the air in a huge fire with a working reactor. There's nothing worse. That's the most extreme point of "the plant is not going to work normally". A reactor CANNOT EXPLODE like a nuclear weapon, if you think that. No more than your television set can explode like a nuclear weapon. So we err on the "safe" side if we assume that the worse thing will happen to every reactor. And if we suppose that, we see that this is by far not able to exterminate life on earth, as the only example we have has a thriving ecosystem around it.

So I'm not saying that we think that reactors will behave this and so and that there's nothing to worry about. I'm saying that even if the worst thing happens that can happen, your statement cannot be held up. Do you understand that logic ?

Again, it is as if I was stating that windmills can generate a world-wide storm that can blow life and the atmosphere from the surface of the earth. I would like to hear your argument why that won't happen (and hence, why it is NOT dangerous to build windmills). What would you do ? You would go to an extreme worst case: you would suppose that a wind mill goes crazy, and goes rotating at the speed that is still just bearable by its rotor. If it turns faster, it would blow itself apart. Now, you would then see what wind such a thing can blow, how many there are, and if that total wind is sufficient to blow the atmosphere in space. I didn't do the estimation - but sure it would convince me that my fear argument is maybe too strong.

 

[bobbobwhite]

Your serious deficiency in reading comprehension concerns me, as it makes it very difficult to discuss anything of content with you. In your retorts, you say I say things that I do not say, and you also distort and twist things I do say, perhaps/surely for your own slanted purposes. You must discontinue that manner for any debating respect from me, if ever. It's not even allowed in high school debating, so it surely shouldn't exist in the discussions of adults. You are an adult, aren't you?

Capitalism, communism, Socratic government, e.g., and so many other volatile theoretical topics of debate may seem to appear so reasonable and practical upon theoretical discussion of application, but it's in the actual application of operation of the theory where they so often fail. These failed theories are fundamentally flawed by always assuming that they will be performed perfectly by 100% totally consistent, dedicated, and expert operatives(machine-like humans? Why don't we make them first?), but it's always in the human failings of the human operatives of the theory that condemns the reality of too many of them to abject and total failure ultimately.

Thus, my concern with nuclear reactor energy production. Until it is extensively and intensively tested in scaled reality(not just in simulated lab experiments), and by doing so exposes the entire reactor area and related locale to all the destructive chain of human-caused events that could ever possibly occur as a result of totally unmanaged meltdown conditions(with you standing next to the reactor of course to prove that you will put your money where your mouth is and end up just fine)and is proven beyond any reasonable and practical doubt that it is no unremediable and significant threat to any Earth lifeforms, I will never be convinced of the miniscule damage scenario that you expouse with such vigor, but with what else? Your kind of Mad Magazine, "what, me worry" attitude and position on this topic always should seriously alarm anyone with more than only youth experience in this very humanly flawed world.

I was't going to mention this but now will...your moronic windmills example of whatever is something I might expect from a child...so totally flawed, unrelated and poorly reasoned that it makes me wince to even think about commenting on it in an adult discussion.

Actually, it makes me sadly think of what may have been said in a singularly obtuse, power mad, and duty-conflicted discussion scenario of Bush and Cheney in their "War Room" before their Iraq invasion. Possibly, "we will never allow a mine shaft gap!" and, "mein Fuhrer, I can walk!" Seems about right.

 

[vanesch]

Thus, my concern with nuclear reactor energy production. Until it is extensively and intensively tested in scaled reality(not just in simulated lab experiments), and by doing so exposes the entire reactor area and related locale to all the destructive chain of human-caused events that could ever possibly occur as a result of totally unmanaged meltdown conditions(with you standing next to the reactor of course to prove that you will put your money where your mouth is and end up just fine)and is proven beyond any reasonable and practical doubt that it is no unremediable and significant threat to any Earth lifeforms, I will never be convinced of the miniscule damage scenario that you expouse with such vigor, but with what else?

Now, as to me putting words in your mouth, this is what you said:

This talk about nuclear energy...I read a science article that stated if the world builds many reactors for total necessary energy supply and then, due to global warming elements already/subsequently released, humans are eradicated and thus not around to control all those reactors, the world would then be rapidly stripped of life due to overheating of the reactors and the resulting total melt downs which would release massive radiation, and the living natural world as it was for billions of years would end, and possibly another Mars would be the result.

In other words, nuclear reactors, according to you and your "science" article, would very probably annihilate ALL LIFE FROM EARTH. This is the utterly erroneous statement of which I try to make you see the absurdity. I don't have to show "minuscule damage", I have to show minuscule damage as compared to this claim. And that's what I did. It wasn't difficult.

I didn't say that individuals will not die. You claimed that the meltdown of a thousand reactors would annihilate life on Earth (and some more obscure things, which were not very understandable, like no oxygen, no water, no light... but there's a limit to the absurdity I'm willing to contradict).

As to scaled reality, what more do you want than Chernobyl ? Why is that "experiment" not sufficient ? If you are now going to claim that that was only ONE reactor, and not a thousand, ok, then in order to prove to you that a thousand reactors are not going to annihilate life on earth, we should blow up a thousand reactors ? Just to satisfy your unwillingness to accept some minor theoretical extrapolation to multiply the damage of one with 1000 ?

So, in order for my 1000 times Chernobyl argument to fail, you have to show me:
1) that your average nuclear reactor is going to do something far worse than what happened there. I think it is going to be difficult. What physical process do you have in mind that will be more lethal to biological life than what happened there: a significant part of the hot core of the reactor blown high in the atmosphere ?

Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

2) contradict the actual observed ecosystem around Chernobyl. Mind you, something DID die at Chernobyl: the nearby "Red Forest" was indeed biologically destroyed: it represents a surface of about 10 square km and was nearby the plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest
But in the 30km zone, life is thriving - not exterminated, I refer again to the BBC article I linked to earlier on.
So you have now to tell me how a Chernobyl-like accident is going to kill all life in a perimeter around it, while the actual Chernobyl accident didn't, on the contrary.

3) Tell me how you are going to exterminate all life on EARTH by something that could at most affect a few percent of its land surface, given the individual effect, times the number.

In other words, my argument is pretty strong: I base it on an over-estimation, a real observation, and a simple extrapolation (from 1 to 1000).

Again, I'm not saying that something like a Chernobyl accident is not a disaster for the humans that live nearby. But we are talking here about all humans already dead. You were saying that nuclear reactors left on their own would destroy essentially "life as we know it" from the surface of the earth. My simple argument shows you that you are far off the mark.

But your demand is unrealistic: you would want people to undergo human disasters on a wide scale (we should blow up 1000 reactors) just to show you that in case that humanity disappears, not all rabbits are going to disappear off the surface of the earth, because you are unwilling to accept anything else. That's an unreasonable demand.

Ok, I challenge you again: show me that it is not life-threatening to Gaia to build many windmills, that they cannot blow life, and the atmosphere, into outer space when left unattended. Go ahead. And once you've demonstrated that to me, I'll analyse what kind of argument you are sensitive to, and I'll reformulate the argument of the 1000 reactors in a similar way.

Hell, show me that it is not life-threatening to Gaia that if all humans drop dead on the same day, that their rotting bodies will not poison the biosphere beyond repair! Shall we all drop dead (except one, to write down the observations) just to show you that it is safe to be here for Gaia ?

So tell me, what WOULD convince you that 1000 reactors, left to their own, cannot destroy life on Earth ? And are you willing to apply the same request for rigor to a lot of other human activities ? Or should nuclear reactors be treated differently ?

 

[russ_watters]

This is just nonsense. Thanks for destroying a perfectly good thread, bob.