Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are correct tho that Nuke is by far the best way to produce power at this time...

I'd say that's a bit over the top. Nuclear energy might be necessary at this point, but it's certainly not "by far the best way to produce power".

Ignoring the "worst case scenario" images painted by the most vocal opponents, there are still a number of serious considerations to be taken into account.

Earlier on this thread, I've linked to a long term study by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency. The study found that children between 0 and 4 years of age who had been living within 5km (3.1 miles) of a nuclear power plant had a risk more than twice as high as a randomly selected control group to come down with leukemia. The risk increased proportionally with proximity to the facility. Earlier studies in England and Wales had similar results.

Noteworthy, because similar studies are often brought up to illustrate the safety of nuclear reactors. As far as I remember, studies on the personnel of US nuclear ships have rather found lower rates for cancer than what would be expected in the general population. Considering that the makeup of the population of nuclear ship personnel likely differs from that of the general population, that is maybe not as surprising as it sounds.

Another concern is certainly storage of nuclear waste. I have to admit that I'm not up to date on the status of American nuclear waste storage facilities. However, this very recent case in a German nuclear waste storage research facility has certainly drawn attention. Officials recently confirmed that radioactive brine has been leaking for two decades from storage site (contained insofar as the radioactive solution, once the leaks were discovered, had simply been pumped to lower levels of the former mine).

Worrying insofar as the site had been considered safe to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years merely two decades ago.

I will add that the above concerns are certainly more pertinent in a country with a high population density.

0 Replies

I'll add another concern to the discussion about nukes: cost.

Despite the discussions in regard to energy and the concerns that any form of energy strategy should be viable by itself rather than relying on government subsidies, it is not at all clear whether or not commercial nuclear reactors would clear that hurdle.

Warren Buffet has famously dropped his plans to build a nuclear power facility, stating that "it could not provide reasonably priced energy to its customers." Some studies say that the cost for a next-generation nuclear plant today could be as high as $7 billion.

In that light, it's also worth to discuss the fact that electricity from nuclear power plants is currently subsidized in the United States: companies receive 1.8 cents tax credit for each kW/h of electricity. Depending on the plant, that could amount to than $140 million per reactor per year.

0 Replies

Cyc's not comparing nuclear energy to some theoretical source of clean fairy energy, though.

Compared to other real-world sources, nuclear has a lot going for it. Leaving the global warming issue aside completely, setting fire to a petrochemical energy source for power produces plenty of "old-fashioned" pollution as well.

Compared to solar or wind, it requires relatively little actual land for emplacement; you don't have to dedicate vast amounts of space to the actual nuclear power plants, nor for waste disposal.

Cost-wise, it's competitive with everything except super-cheap oil, which we probably won't be seeing again for a while.

As far as scaling, there's no -technical- reason we couldn't build many new nuclear power plants. It wouldn't require massive changes in infrastructure.

Finally, unlike most of the "new" renewables, we know how nuclear works in a production environment. This is unlike wind or solar, where we have experience with small-scale deployments but not with the kind of huge installations we'd need to significantly affect the energy consumption of the nation.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

Cyc's not comparing nuclear energy to some theoretical source of clean fairy energy, though.

Compared to other real-world sources, nuclear has a lot going for it. Leaving the global warming issue aside completely, setting fire to a petrochemical energy source for power produces plenty of "old-fashioned" pollution as well.

I agree.

Avatar ADV wrote:

Compared to solar or wind, it requires relatively little actual land for emplacement; you don't have to dedicate vast amounts of space to the actual nuclear power plants, nor for waste disposal.

That's certainly true, but it's also a result of thinking in the conventional "power plant" design. For example, there's no reason why very many surfaces that we already use (roofs, buildings, etc.) could not be put to a dual use via PV technology - without using up any additional land whatsoever.

I agree that that's more tricky with CSP plants or windfarms, though.

Avatar ADV wrote:

Cost-wise, it's competitive with everything except super-cheap oil, which we probably won't be seeing again for a while.

I absolutely dispute that. Like with renewable power, we only have a wealth of data for existing, mostly decades old facilities.

If you compare the total cost of constructing and operating a next-generation nuclear power plant (which has significantly gone up since the nuclear boom decades ago) with the cost of constructing and operating new, state-of-the-art renewable facilities, I'd doubt the matter would be that clear cut.

For existing facilities, your statement is certainly right, though...

Avatar ADV wrote:

As far as scaling, there's no -technical- reason we couldn't build many new nuclear power plants. It wouldn't require massive changes in infrastructure.

The same seems to be true for renewables. In fact, countries that have heavily pushed renewable energy in recent years (like Spain or Norway) don't seem to have any infrastructural problems with integrating those facilities at all.

Avatar ADV wrote:

Finally, unlike most of the "new" renewables, we know how nuclear works in a production environment. This is unlike wind or solar, where we have experience with small-scale deployments but not with the kind of huge installations we'd need to significantly affect the energy consumption of the nation.

That might possibly be true for America :wink:

However, large scale facilities have been operating in several countries, and new plants (like e.g. the London Array) are being planned and built that each have the capacity to easily replace a nuclear plant.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Some studies say that the cost for a next-generation nuclear plant today could be as high as $7 billion.

In that light, it's also worth to discuss the fact that electricity from nuclear power plants is currently subsidized in the United States: companies receive 1.8 cents tax credit for each kW/h of electricity. Depending on the plant, that could amount to than $140 million per reactor per year.

In the first place nuclear power plants in this country are NOT curremtly subsidized as you claim. Energy legislation passed a couple of years ago provided for a temporary tax credit for qualifying NEW advanced reactor plants. None have yet been built, and no such tax credits are in effect.

Nuclear power generated by our currently operating 99 plants is today, except for hydroelectric power, our cheapest source of electric energy at 6.5 cents/KWHr. Coal-fired plants yield about 8.5cents/KWHr, while wind and solar sources are above 13cents/KWHr. All but about 5 of our existing nuclear plants are over 20 years old and their capital costs are now fully amortized - something that gives them a decisive advantage. However the same is true of most of our coal-fired plants, and the the amorization of capital cost is a factor usually left out of the comparative datas for renewable sources.

Even at the very high $7 billion cost you quoted and assuming a 20 year amortization period, at current nuclear plant operational rates, the amortized capital cost for the hypothetical new 1160MW plant would be about 4cents/KWHr, yielding a total cost of 10.5cents/KWHr - still far cheaper than renewable sources. Moreover, with the new tax credit the net would be about 8.6 cents/KWHr, or approximately the same cost as for coal, our next cheapest source (surprise!).

The six already approved licenses for new plant construction are all for new plants colocated with existing ones on sites with existing fuel storage infrastructure and known safety & geological factors. These factors should greatly improve the "some studies" worst-case cost estimate you quoted above.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are correct tho that Nuke is by far the best way to produce power at this time...

I'd say that's a bit over the top. Nuclear energy might be necessary at this point, but it's certainly not "by far the best way to produce power".

Ignoring the "worst case scenario" images painted by the most vocal opponents, there are still a number of serious considerations to be taken into account.

Earlier on this thread, I've linked to a long term study by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency. The study found that children between 0 and 4 years of age who had been living within 5km (3.1 miles) of a nuclear power plant had a risk more than twice as high as a randomly selected control group to come down with leukemia. The risk increased proportionally with proximity to the facility. Earlier studies in England and Wales had similar results.

Noteworthy, because similar studies are often brought up to illustrate the safety of nuclear reactors. As far as I remember, studies on the personnel of US nuclear ships have rather found lower rates for cancer than what would be expected in the general population. Considering that the makeup of the population of nuclear ship personnel likely differs from that of the general population, that is maybe not as surprising as it sounds.

Another concern is certainly storage of nuclear waste. I have to admit that I'm not up to date on the status of American nuclear waste storage facilities. However, this very recent case in a German nuclear waste storage research facility has certainly drawn attention. Officials recently confirmed that radioactive brine has been leaking for two decades from storage site (contained insofar as the radioactive solution, once the leaks were discovered, had simply been pumped to lower levels of the former mine).

Worrying insofar as the site had been considered safe to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years merely two decades ago.

I will add that the above concerns are certainly more pertinent in a country with a high population density.

A few points:

First, it would be a rather trivial matter to locate large nuclear plants 5, 10, or 15 miles away from significant populations. This may help a bit with the little radiation leaks.

Second, as for 'nuclear waste,' I think this is a rather poorly named term. It's extremely potent stuff; we just don't have a good use for it at this time.

Third, I think comparisons to the health problems put off by the vast amount of radioactive material and other pollutants put into the air by the burning of coal every year makes nukes seem much, much more attractive. The coal lobby has done a good job keeping this little fact silent, but it's not as if our current method of power generation is any less radioactive then nukes.

Nuke, wind, solar, bio, geothermal. A good system will have several points of energy creation and redundancies. Hopefully we can get some fusion plants together in the next 20-50 years and end this whole debate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are correct tho that Nuke is by far the best way to produce power at this time...

I'd say that's a bit over the top. Nuclear energy might be necessary at this point, but it's certainly not "by far the best way to produce power".

Ignoring the "worst case scenario" images painted by the most vocal opponents, there are still a number of serious considerations to be taken into account.

Earlier on this thread, I've linked to a long term study by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency. The study found that children between 0 and 4 years of age who had been living within 5km (3.1 miles) of a nuclear power plant had a risk more than twice as high as a randomly selected control group to come down with leukemia. The risk increased proportionally with proximity to the facility. Earlier studies in England and Wales had similar results.

Noteworthy, because similar studies are often brought up to illustrate the safety of nuclear reactors. As far as I remember, studies on the personnel of US nuclear ships have rather found lower rates for cancer than what would be expected in the general population. Considering that the makeup of the population of nuclear ship personnel likely differs from that of the general population, that is maybe not as surprising as it sounds.

Another concern is certainly storage of nuclear waste. I have to admit that I'm not up to date on the status of American nuclear waste storage facilities. However, this very recent case in a German nuclear waste storage research facility has certainly drawn attention. Officials recently confirmed that radioactive brine has been leaking for two decades from storage site (contained insofar as the radioactive solution, once the leaks were discovered, had simply been pumped to lower levels of the former mine).

Worrying insofar as the site had been considered safe to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years merely two decades ago.

I will add that the above concerns are certainly more pertinent in a country with a high population density.

We have a fully completed long term storage facility for high level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain nevada. It is empty and awaiting congressional action for opening - a hotly debated political and psychological issue. The science of the case for its safety is quite clear.

Existing on site storage for spent fuel is sufficient for well over 30 more years, without ANY new construction. Most of these sites have been converted to new dry-cask designs that are not subject to leakage issues of the type you described.

There is no shortage of "studies" that purport to show a large relative increase in the incidence of (carefully) selected diseases. There is also no shortage of other studies that contradict them or find no measurable effect. Moreover while 2 x 10exp -6 is twice 1 x 10exp -6, it is still a very small number. The "healthy worker" effect is well-known. Disease rates for nuclear workers are all generally less than those for the general population simply because the effects are sufficiently small so as to be completely overshadowed by the difference in the average traits of the general population and the subset of it healthy enough to work. However there is also ample data to show that disease rates for employed people in generally similar activities show no measurable adverse effects for nuclear workers. Indeed the accident data for occupations ranging from mining to construction, truck driving, professional sports and a host of other occupations reveal risks far greater than the worst claimed even by anti nuke zealots for nuclear workers. Navy data, now for almost 40 years, shows no difference for the crews of nuclear ships and others of conventional design. Interestingly the public health statistics for Three Mile Island - our worst nuclear "accident" - now 30 years later reveals no measurable effect whatever on the surrounding population. (This is no surprise as the external dose was far less than what an exposed individual would have received from natural sources in a three-week skiing vacation in Aspen.)

I'm aware there is a fairly hot debate now ongoing in Germany about whether the country should abide by its earlier (pre-global warming) committment to abandon its existing nuclear plants. I believe the salient issue here is that this action would, by a wide margin, wipe out all the greenhous gas emission gains forecast for the next several decades of investment in wind and solar power. That, in view of the new AGW concerns, a large segment of the public would still wish to do this is illustrative of the irrational psychological factors involved in the issue. These matters tend to bring out the lunatic frings of which I believe Germany has at least its fair share. They appear to have influenced you as well.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

In the first place nuclear power plants in this country are NOT curremtly subsidized as you claim. Energy legislation passed a couple of years ago provided for a temporary tax credit for qualifying NEW advanced reactor plants. None have yet been built, and no such tax credits are in effect.

I admit that I worded that poorly, but I was indeed only referring to new, next-generation nuclear plants, which yet have to be built.

There are several incentives Congress has put in place for companies to build these new plants. That includes the 1.8 cents tax credit for each kW/h, a $500 million payout for each of the first two plants built and a $250 million payout for each for the next four in case of delays for reasons outside of company control, and a total of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees.

You're right that, as no new plants have yet been built, no such tax credits are in effect.

georgeob1 wrote:

Nuclear power generated by our currently operating 99 plants is today, except for hydroelectric power, our cheapest source of electric energy at 6.5 cents/KWHr. Coal-fired plants yield about 8.5cents/KWHr, while wind and solar sources are above 13cents/KWHr. All but about 5 of our existing nuclear plants are over 20 years old and their capital costs are now fully amortized - something that gives them a decisive advantage. However the same is true of most of our coal-fired plants, and the the amorization of capital cost is a factor usually left out of the comparative datas for renewable sources.

I agree completely. But if we're talking about building new plants, it will be necessary to compare the costs of new, state-of-the-art plants.

With renewables, it's impossible to make sweeping generalizations for all of the United States, and depending on location they may very well be able to compete with conventional plants.

georgeob1 wrote:

Even at the very high $7 billion cost you quoted and assuming a 20 year amortization period, at current nuclear plant operational rates, the amortized capital cost for the hypothetical new 1160MW plant would be about 4cents/KWHr, yielding a total cost of 10.5cents/KWHr - still far cheaper than renewable sources. Moreover, with the new tax credit the net would be about 8.6 cents/KWHr, or approximately the same cost as for coal, our next cheapest source (surprise!).

If I may, I'll bring up the current 25,000MW wind farm proposal again: the 2,000 turbines in offshore windparks are estimated to cost roughly 30 billion, or about $45 billion. In the proposed region, those turbines would generate electricity about 8,000 h/a, and run at full capacity for about 40-50% of the time.

Even at those limiting production rates (compared with a 100% rate for nuclear power), renewables would be able to compete in costs (in cents/kWh).

georgeob1 wrote:

The six already approved licenses for new plant construction are all for new plants colocated with existing ones on sites with existing fuel storage infrastructure and known safety & geological factors. These factors should greatly improve the "some studies" worst-case cost estimate you quoted above.

Sure. As I said above, costs may very well vary depending on location. That's true for nuclear plants as well.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A few points:

First, it would be a rather trivial matter to locate large nuclear plants 5, 10, or 15 miles away from significant populations. This may help a bit with the little radiation leaks.

It would. As I said earlier, concerns are obviously different simply based on population density of a specific country.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Second, as for 'nuclear waste,' I think this is a rather poorly named term. It's extremely potent stuff; we just don't have a good use for it at this time.

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you talking about reprocessing rods? Sure, one option....

If you're talking about what is commonly referred to 'nuclear waste' (as in "we have no clue what to do with it, so let's bury it").... yes, it's extremely potent stuff. I don't know what you're trying to get at, though. It is waste at the moment. It might not be 100 or 1,000 years from now - but I don't see how that would change the discussion about safety issues regarding its storage today.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Third, I think comparisons to the health problems put off by the vast amount of radioactive material and other pollutants put into the air by the burning of coal every year makes nukes seem much, much more attractive. The coal lobby has done a good job keeping this little fact silent, but it's not as if our current method of power generation is any less radioactive then nukes.

Sure. But that's saying that a small compact car is really better than a large, gas guzzling SUV.

In that regard, I see nuclear power as a bridge technology... pretty much like hybrid cars. It's not exactly the goal we want to reach in the end, but compared with current alternatives, it certainly looks more interesting.

That said: considering to replace all coal plants as kind of some energy master plan would require investments to the tune of several hundred billions of dollars. It seems to me that going straight for the intended goal rather than settling for some intermediate solution might at least be an option worth considering.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nuke, wind, solar, bio, geothermal. A good system will have several points of energy creation and redundancies. Hopefully we can get some fusion plants together in the next 20-50 years and end this whole debate.

Water, tidal. Yes, hopefully.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

We have a fully completed long term storage facility for high level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain nevada. <snip>

I'm aware of that, but I'm not informed on what the dispute is about. As I've said earlier, population density is one factor to consider. That's true for nuclear plants, but also for waste storage facilities. And that's all apart from the safety discussion.

I'll have to read up on this one, though.

georgeob1 wrote:

There is no shortage of "studies" that purport to show a large relative increase in the incidence of (carefully) selected diseases.

I know that you're rather willing to dismiss these studies. However, I'm sure even you would pay some attention to these studies if you were actually living within the 5k perimeter.

If it'd bother you or not I don't know....

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm aware there is a fairly hot debate now ongoing in Germany about whether the country should abide by its earlier (pre-global warming) committment to abandon its existing nuclear plants. I believe the salient issue here is that this action would, by a wide margin, wipe out all the greenhous gas emission gains forecast for the next several decades of investment in wind and solar power.

Currently, the discussion seems to focus on phasing out nukes over a longer range of time, while putting more money and effort into switching to renewables.

georgeob1 wrote:

That, in view of the new AGW concerns, a large segment of the public would still wish to do this is illustrative of the irrational psychological factors involved in the issue.

You're absolutely right. For better or worse, irrational fear often drives our policy decisions. As long as nobody gets shot, abducted or tortured in the course of those decisions, I'm pretty neutral on this one.

georgeob1 wrote:

These matters tend to bring out the lunatic frings of which I believe Germany has at least its fair share. They appear to have influenced you as well.

Sheesh! And we were just having a good, factual discussion...

0 Replies

here is an interesting twist : MR. OIL himself - t boone pickens - suggests that the U.S. wean itself of oil and instead use ... WINDPOWER Shocked

and he has put his money where his mouth his - not many others are doing it !
he predicted the run-up in the oil price ; will he be right one more time - or will politics get into the way ?
hbg

Quote:

Oil man unveils wind-based power plan

Texas magnate says foreign oil is 'killing' the economy; invested $2 billion in plan to build world's largest wind farm.

Last Updated: July 8, 2008: 1:37 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens Tuesday unveiled a new energy plan he says will decrease the United States' dependency on foreign oil by more than one-third and help shift American energy production toward renewable natural resources like wind power.

In a news conference outlining his proposal, Pickens said his impetus for the plan is the country's dangerous reliance on foreign oil. "Our dependence on imported oil is killing our economy. It is the single biggest problem facing America today," he said.

"The Pickens Plan" calls for investing in domestic renewable resources such as wind, and switching from oil to natural gas as a transportation fuel.

Pickens said that if the United States harnesses the so-called "wind corridor," stretching from the Canadian border to West Texas, energy from wind turbines built there could supply 20% or more of the nation's power. He suggested the project could be funded by private investors.

Power from the thousands of wind turbines that would line the corridor could be distributed throughout the country via electric power transmission lines and could fuel power plants in large population hubs, the oil baron said.

Fueling these plants with wind power would then free up the natural gas historically used to power them, and would mean that natural gas could be used to replace foreign oil as fuel for motor vehicles, he explained.

Using natural gas for transportation needs could replace one third of the United States' imported oil, and would save more than $230 billion a year, Pickens said.

His energy plan could be implemented within 10 years if both Congress and the White House treat the current energy situation as a "national emergency and take immediate action," he predicted.

Pickens, a lifelong Republican, says he is not advising either presidential candidate, but is prepared to work with whoever wins the White House.

Oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover said Pickens' plan could definitely reduce the country's dependency on foreign oil.

"The best thing about it is that it's a definite plan - it's not something that either party has pitted itself outrightly against. It therefore has a tremendous chance for success on Capitol Hill."

Analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., added that such a plan "has been on the drawing board for years."

Pickens' company, Mesa Power, recently announced a $2 billion investment as the first step in a multi-billion dollar plan to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

source :
T BOONE PICKENS

0 Replies

Well this country is capable of doing almost anything if we are united in a committment and Congress declares it a national emergency requiring immediate action. While I can't verify his estimate that the "wind corridor" project could yield 20% of our electrical power requiremnents, the whole thing is remarkably like something I have proposed with respect to nuclear power, and which interestingly enough, John McCain suggested not long ago -- namely that we construct an additional 100 nuclear power plants, enough to more than double the current 20% nuclear share (and raise our use of nuclear to about the current level in Germany, or about half that of France). That would immediately free up the natural gas that today produces about 16% of our electrical power - an amount equivalent to about 40% of our petroleum imports - and, in addition deliver enough surplus electrical energy to make plug in hybrid vehicles a possibility, thereby further reducing petroleum imports.

Pickens may well believe the public is more likely to accept the wind alternative than the nuclear one.

I remain skeptical of some of the claims being so blithely made about the (as yet unproven) potential of very large wind turbines. I believe the key design issue is finding the right match between turbine capacity and local wind conditions. It doesn't make much sense to locate a 7MW capacity turbine in areas of relatively low average wind speeds - the resulting fan diameter would be prohibitive. Secondly, because the wind doesn't always blow, the relationship between peak and average conditions will vary greatly from location to location - thereby greatly limiting the maximum capacity of any turbine installed there, and ultimately determining the fraction of the design capacity that can actually be achieved in that location. There are some key locations onshore and offshore that offer particularly advantageous conditions for large turbines, however, they are relatively few and, even there seasonal factors can still prevail. Very high towers and other potential innovations can expand the zones of useful applications, however they add significantly to cost.

Even a large wind farm using the latest 7MW machines with (say) a 50% recovery factor will still require 800 turbines to equal the output of a single dual plant power station, nuclear or coal-fired. That's a lot of windmills! About 40,000 such machines would be required to achieve Pickens planned output.

Happily the situation before us is not either or. We can do some of both. Unhappily zealots in this game often insist on solutions involving one or two favored alternatives exclusively. I would prefer to see free competition among all the alternatives based on economic factors alone. That is the best way to stimulate effective investment and the innovation needed to improve these technologies. Unfortunately narrow-minded people, often with latent authoritarian dispositions, insist on preconceived, "planned" solutions. In the real world things just don't work that way.

0 Replies

Quote:

Uranium liquid leak in southern France

0 Replies

The 'anti' almost anything generally do exaggerate risks. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in southern New Mexico is a depository for low level nuclear waste in deep, seismically stable salt mines. The 'waste' we are talking about here is gloves/gowns etc. used by medical personnel using nuclear medicine, etc. You could roll around in the stuff with no serious risk. But the environmentalist kept WIPP closed for years by disallowing the trucks carrying it to pass through their communities. Eventually whole new highways were built to accommodate such fears, and the waste itself is contained in hermetically sealed containers that you could drop from the space shuttle in the stratosphere without rupturing. At what cost? I never checked but certainly astronomical.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't want anybody dumping radioactive or toxic anything into our lakes, rivers, oceans, or other water supply. And the accident as described in France does merit close scrutiny and remedy to ensure that there is no repeat.

It is unfortunate, however, that such incidents are exaggerated beyond belief and held up as prime examples to stop progress on development of nuclear energy or whatever.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The 'anti' almost anything generally do exaggerate risks.

Is that the reason why you're so concerned about mercury in CFLs?

:wink:

Foxfyre wrote:

It is unfortunate, however, that such incidents are exaggerated beyond belief and held up as prime examples to stop progress on development of nuclear energy or whatever.

Can't say I disagree much...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
These matters tend to bring out the lunatic frings of which I believe Germany has at least its fair share. They appear to have influenced you as well.

Sheesh! And we were just having a good, factual discussion...

You're right: my remark was a bit snide, and I apologize for it.

I was thinking about your references to allegations of health effects associated with existing nuclear plants - a subject I know very well. You took a few selected studies out of context and did so without apparently considering the much greater accumulation of data suggesting strongly that whatever effects may be tortured out of the statistics (and they are few & rare) are very small compared to hundreds of other far more ubiqitous hazards that are accepted by the same critics without comment. Moreover the weight of the data strongly counters the specific claims put forward, usually based on flawed analysis of small statistical samples that were influences more by factors not cited in the usually referenced studies.

0 Replies

I am concerned about large quantities of mercury that is being manditorily pushed on the general public with absolutely zero controls on its handling and disposal. I think the risks of soil and water contamination are far greater there than are risks inherent from operation of nuclear energy plants that do have strict safety standards and rigid controls. An entirely informal and unscientific straw poll conducted on line and among my neighbors who are using or who have used CFLs suggests they are just pitching them when they break or burn out. That 'tiny bit of mercury' just doesn't bother them enough to merit extra care or seeking out ways to properly dispose of it.

I love fish and seafood and am already bothered by alerts of high mercury levels there. How much worse is that likely to be with use of many hundreds of millions of CFLs all over the country or billions all over the world?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am concerned about large quantities of mercury that is being manditorily pushed on the general public with absolutely zero controls on its handling and disposal. I think the risks of soil and water contamination are far greater there than are risks inherent from operation of nuclear energy plants that do have strict safety standards and rigid controls. An entirely informal and unscientific straw poll conducted on line and among my neighbors who are using or who have used CFLs suggests they are just pitching them when they break or burn out. That 'tiny bit of mercury' just doesn't bother them enough to merit extra care or seeking out ways to properly dispose of it.

I love fish and seafood and am already bothered by alerts of high mercury levels there. How much worse is that likely to be with use of many hundreds of millions of CFLs all over the country or billions all over the world?

Calling cyclops, we need an answer, after all he is the great proponent of CFL's to save the world.

0 Replies

we have used CFL'S for at least 20 years - remember the expensive phillips "circlites" ?
as usual , we were ahed of the curve - we also paid for extra insulation for our house BEFORE the canadian government made grant money available for it - but it sure paid in reduced fuel consumption !
some of the original circlites are still operating after 15-20 years .
we've had now more than 3 or 4 CFL'S burn out over the years - we take them to a store and put them into the re-cycle box for CFL'S - VERY EASY TO DO - NO MUSS , NO FUSS !
hbg

0 Replies

The mercury emitted by coal-burning power plants is what is currently leading to pollution; that emitted by broken CFL's couldn't even put a dent in the amount. Where is the charge against coal power, Fox?

Okie,

I do support the use of CFL's, and as they don't burn out or break very often, I don't consider this issue to be a major pollution problem.

It's like claiming that changing your motor oil at home is a major pollution problem - after all, you may not dispose of it correctly! Bull. Dispose of it correctly and there is no problem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know