Finland buries its nuclear past
Finland could become the first country in the world to entomb its nuclear waste in a designated final resting place, underground, for the price of 3 billion euros - I’m sure the enviornmentalists just love this…
An unprepossessing tunnel entrance set in low forest on the western coast of Finland marks the probable final resting place of the country’s most dangerous nuclear waste. While British authorities agonise over what to do with the legacy of half a century of nuclear power, Finland is one of a handful of countries which has embarked on the journey towards a “final” waste solution.
Enter the 6.5m-high, 5m-wide (20ft-high, 16ft-wide) Onkalo tunnel, and you would drive down a spiralling track which will eventually stretch 5km (3miles) through solid rock, reaching a depth of 500m (1,600ft). The first travellers to go down the tunnel will be investigators aiming to demonstrate that the rock is structurally sound enough to proceed with the disposal of spent fuel rods containing plutonium and other unpleasant materials. If they were to turn up a positive result, and if government agencies grant the necessary licences, the first canisters of spent fuel would begin rolling down the tunnel about 15 years from now.
Hat Tip to Chris K.!
Well, where would you rather have it then. I a barrell in some Siberian granny’s back yard as it is today?
Comment by Hank W. — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
The enviromentalists shouldn’t be called enviromentalists to begin with, their dumbass opposition to nuclear power has done alot to cement the dominance of fossil fuels.
Damn I am so proud of Finland for this. Only us and the French seem have a sensible approach to energy generation and enviromental concerns while the other countries in europe fuck themselves over.
By the way, these things are designed to last for tens of thousands of years, but the waste will after 500 years have degraded to the point where it is as radioactive as the natural uranium found in the ground. It’s just that the regulations want the things to last so long that you can swim in the stuff and even drink it.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Oh and less than 1% of all industrial waste is nuclear waste and you know it degrades and becomes safe, unlike most industrial toxins which remain dangerous indefinitely.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
I would not want this marketed as ‘waste issue solved’, because it’s not
-Kaisa Kosonen, Greenpeace
Oh just shut up, your lies are getting on my nerves. These people know jack and shit about nuclear power. They recently released some alternative numbers for the chernobyl death toll, what they did was simply expand the area to all of europe instead of the affected areas and then pretty much decided that the increase in cancer was because of Chernobyl instead of the millions of other reasons(for fucks sake, the burning of wood causes as many deaths as chernobyl every three years). These guys need a foot up the ass. I mean why is the US having the same cancer trend who weren’t hit by chernobyl fallout?
I even got a letter from Greenpeace where they claim that nuclear fusion research is bad and that is has all the problems of nuclear fission. Utter lies from a bunch of fearmongering luddites without a clue. Like all nuclear opposition it’s based on fear and ignorance.
These guys don’t have an enviromental agenda, they have an anti-development, anti-human agenda that they stop at nothing to achieve.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Some of the radionuclides - atoms with unstable nuclei that undergo radioactive decay - in spent fuel rods remain radioactive for more than 100,000 years. In that time, could not even the tiny quantities of water which the bentonite allows through penetrate the copper canister shells, allowing dangerously active isotopes to escape?
Ahem, the longer it takes for an isotope to decay the less radioactive it is. Thats why the really dangerous stuff is the first to go, in less than 1000 years. Thats a physical law. The rest of the stuff is about as dangerous as what lies in the ground today, which has been there for billions of years.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
The solution is easy. Just call on Superman to throw the shit into the sun like he did with all of the nuclear missiles in the world.
Next stop: Prime Minister of Finland.
Comment by gopha — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Final storage is a perfectly workable solution technically. The problem is political.
Though I myself am not entierly for deep geological deposition just yet. Those used fuel rods are still useable. We can reuse over 95% of the waste after it’s first use, it can be reprocessed, used and reprocessed again until only a very small amount is left that we can stuff away.
There’s also an interesting alternative in the subcritical reactor. Essentially you couple a reactor to a particle accelerator and produce neutrons through spallation. Through this we can eat up the nuclear waste and get energy from the process.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I hope no one takes greenpeace seirously these days. Their whining is just so huge that you miss all the important stuff since they whine from everything.
For example they whine about finnish forest industry which is like the last thing they should focus on. (Finnish forests must grow more then they are being cut says the law)
Comment by dude — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
Greenpeace option:
Lake Karachay (Russian: ÚðрðчðÌÂù), sometimes spelled Karachai is a small lake in the southern Ural mountains in eastern Russia. Starting in 1951 [1] the Soviet Union used Karachay as a dumping site for radioactive waste from Mayak, the nearby nuclear waste storage and reprocessing facility, located near the town of Ozyorsk (then called Chelyabinsk-40).
According to a Worldwatch Institute report on nuclear waste, Karachay is the “most polluted spot” on Earth.[1] The lake accumulated some 4.44 exabecquerels (EBq) of radioactivity [2], including 3.6 EBq of Caesium-137 and 0.74 EBq of Strontium-90 [3].
The radiation level at the shore of the lake is 600 röntgens per hour, more than sufficient to kill a human within an hour.
Starting in the 1960s, the lake began to dry out; its area dropped from 0.5 km2 in 1951 [5] to 0.15 km2 by the end of 1993. [6] In 1968, following a drought in the region, the wind carried radioactive dust away from the dried area of the lake, irradiating half a million people with 185 petabecquerels of radiation.
Between 1978 and 1986 the lake was filled with almost 10,000 hollow concrete blocks to prevent sediments from shifting. The lake is now entirely covered by concrete.
Comment by Hank W. — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
Ahh the soviets… they probably didn’t even put it in containers or anything, just down into the water. I heard they pumped out nuclear waste directly into a river that downstream was the water source for several villages.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
It would be nice to see, what would happen, if we could tap into some imaginary, huge, free, non-polluting source of energy. Probably there would be still someone finding something immoral and shameful out of it.
Greenpeace is apparently afraid that if this is the endlösung for the nuclear waste, there goes a strong argument against building more nuclear power. They probably exchange high fives every time, something ugly and radioactive comes to daylight somewhere. I have the same feeling every time the Brussels directive works topples itself in stupidity.
Ahh, talking about the final waste disposal. I wonder, have they decontaminated few spots in the old Helsinki University physics department at Siltavuori…Those humanists residing there now would pee in their pants, if they knew about some minor “accidents” over the years. Like the irradiation of the janitor’s underwear, but that’s a whole different story.
Comment by antti (the redneck one) — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
It has always been a bit frustrating to follow this debate over nuclear power as it seems that strong emotions play a major part on both sides. The environmentalists don’t even want to hear about building more as they see everything as a potential new Chernobyl with Simpsons-style three-eyed fish swimming in a green radioactive lake. The pro-nuclear people on the other hand seem to detest everything the environmentalists stand for and have a almost religious trust in the infallibility of human engineering and technology.
I’m not taking sides here, but isn’t it a bit problematic to assume that we are so good at designing that the things we build will actually hold for a few thousand years? It’s probably safer and better to store the waste underground than in some temporary storage building where it is kept now, but is it really a solution to the waste problem as a whole? The people in charge are probably doing their best and we all now how bad fossil fuels are but the long time span makes you wonder.
Comment by Joonas — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Ahh the soviets… they probably didn’t even put it in containers or anything, just down into the water. I heard they pumped out nuclear waste directly into a river that downstream was the water source for several villages.
According to some nuclear enthusiasts this would be no problem, as any danger from radiation is just alarmist Greenpeace propaganda. Long-term storage solutions are just designed to appease the ecofascists.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
No thats according to dumbasses who know jack shit about nuclear power or anything at all really. You know, people who are ignoramuses.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
@12
The pro-nuclear people on the other hand seem to detest everything the environmentalists stand for and have a almost religious trust in the infallibility of human engineering and technology.
I consider myself more of an enviromentalist than any greenpeace member. Secondly a realistic assesment and understanding of the design and physics behind nuclear fission helps alot in ones opinions of the risks. I am not claiming it is beyond error, nothing is, but it’s certainly safer than coal power will ever be, or hydro power.
We’ve pretty much seen the worst that can happen in a western reactor and that was back in 1979 at three mile island, a fucking meltdown and the biggest dose of radiation outside anyone could have gotten would have been equivalent to that of a chest x-ray. And by now the safety systems at TMI are a million miles removed from reactors of today which have been upgraded and better designed.
I’m not taking sides here, but isn’t it a bit problematic to assume that we are so good at designing that the things we build will actually hold for a few thousand years?
Not really, nature has done it for billions of years, we’re infact improving on the situation by placing it deeper and more protected confines. Sure if a huge asteroid impacts on the site then it’ll probably be destroyed, along with the rest of Finland and Scandinavia… But the impact and dust that would kick up will kill more life than any amount of radiation.
It’s probably safer and better to store the waste underground than in some temporary storage building where it is kept now, but is it really a solution to the waste problem as a whole?
Yup if you want it to be then it’s perfectly feasible alternative. It is a bit wastefull though to toss away 95% of what is useable fuel. But atleast we are doing something.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
This damn interesting if you want a detailed yet easy to understand walkthrough of the Chernobyl accident: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=131
Comment by Captain Haddock — Fri, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
The big problem with reusing fuel is that a side product of the process is plutonium which can be used to build nuclear weapons. That limits the global usability of those reactors greatly.
Comment by m — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 12:26 am
Ah but nuke weapons can then be dropped on your neighbors, getting rid of that used fuel in a single bang.
Please see your Iranian friends for a demo. Any one guess who their first target is?
Comment by winter — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 3:28 am
No thats according to dumbasses who know jack shit about nuclear power or anything at all really. You know, people who are ignoramuses.
And nuclear enthusiasts just couldn’t be ignoramuses?
FWIW, as an environmentalist, I am ecstatic about Finland’s decision to increase its nuclear power capacity and proud that we are taking concrete pioneering steps in final disposal.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Please see your Iranian friends for a demo. Any one guess who their first target is?
I’d wager for Halliburton headquarters in Iraq. Doesn’t even require an ICBM.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Great commentary on nuclear power, Captain Haddock! In this issue I seem to agree you in every particular.
Greens are just another brand of fundamentalist freaks: everybody must agree with them and follow their way of life or the world will end. It is the anti-human agenda taken to the extreme: Everything else (such as flying squirrel) is more important than the human life. Their FUD propaganda and junk science have destroyed their credibility entirely, but since they’re a cult, their followers do not care, since following the creed gives them the fuzzy, warm numinous feeling inside…
Comment by MarkkuT — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
Greens are just another brand of fundamentalist freaks: everybody must agree with them and follow their way of life or the world will end.
Sounds familiar. A certain political ideology comes to mind. I believe it started with an “l”.
Everything else (such as flying squirrel) is more important than the human life.
Replace the flying squirrel with the Free Market.
Their FUD propaganda and junk science have destroyed their credibility entirely, but since they’re a cult, their followers do not care
Indeed.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Apr 29th, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
Yes, but Halliburton would kick their bum’s all the way to where the 66 Virgins live.
Come to think of it so would Israel, as they glassed the entire country over.
Now the EU. They would offer more containment, or even free dental care if attacked.
Comment by winter — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 3:18 am
is someone biased or what? (9 out of 23 - wow!) although there is nothing wrong with nuclear power, saying that it’s ‘good enough’ will decrease funding for research into truly renewable and much safer alternatives, and may remove the motivation to pursue them at all, at least as far as governments are concerned. yes, nuclear is better than coal fired, but light or wind energy would be even better. nuclear is just a temporary solution, if you set it up as anything more than that and reduce public pressure to develop other technologies we’ll be relying on it 100 years from now.
as for safety, whatever hunk of junk iran or some third world country builds will be little (if at all) better than soviet reactors. and we all know how reliable those are. sure, the areas that will suffer most will be far from north america or europe, but that doesn’t make it ok. plus, we’ll end up paying for clean-up anyway. and that’s expensive. money better spent on developing and spreading affordable, safe and easily accessible energy-acquiring technology, but money that will never be allocated to research unless we push for it.
in conclusion, you are absolutely right, all environmentalists are “dumbasses who know jack shit about nuclear power or anything at all really. You know, people who are ignoramuses” and do indeed “have an anti-development, anti-human agenda that they [will]stop at nothing to achieve”
But thankfully there are brilliant, well-informed and level-headed guys like you out there to stop us. Guys whose undying concern and love for all of humanity (not just the 20-odd mil living in Scandinavia) will guide us to a better tomorrow.
Nuclear truly is a global solution…if the globe only had n.america and europe on it…btw, it doesn’t.
Comment by Anna — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 4:18 am
Captain Haddock:
I don’t think you mentioned that Chernobyl was the result of a Nuclear Accident. As for Greenpeace; they’re very controversial. I don’t know enough to comment so I wont. What a country does with it’s Nuclear Waste is as important as what it’s nuclear ambitions are. We can all argue about what to do about a situation that we feel is wrong, or we can do something about it. Disposing of Nuclear Waste responsibly is as critical to the survival of the environment as, say; recycling. Where it’s disposed of can make a big difference. Those who decide where it’s dumped have to be as responsible as those who use it.
Comment by Ms. New Jersey — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 11:05 am
@24, biased… Well I guess so. I’ve studied the various energy sources and the politics behind them. It has both made pro-nuclear and very anti-greenpeace(what with them being irrational lying scumbags and all). Secondly billions are being invested into nuclear fusion. Which is the only source that will be able to supplement nuclear fission and fossil fuels.
Light and wind energy are not better, they are far worse both enviromentially and economically. I don’t know why people haven’t realized this yet, the mathematics are so clear on this.
These alternative sources are so diffuse and unreliable that they will have to be built in such large quantities as to break the economies of countrues and more than nullify any enviromental gains they might have had. Photovoltaic cells require lots of fresh water and large amounts of energy to build, this process also create huge amounts of extremely dangerous industrial waste, a windplant requires a huge amount of non-renewable resources, per generated KWh they require more finite resources than nuclear. This is not a problem that can be solved by throwing more money on it. It’s pretty much a full-stop.
As for your idea that this applies only to north america and europe, it’s the same dishonest sophistry I’ve come to expect, you play your role so well it’s depressing. India for example are pursuing nuclear power(they are experimenting with thorium-reactors), so is China and loads of other countries. Nbody anymore builds old dangerous junk like the Chernobyl type reactors. They are expensive, dangerous and inefficient, the modern designs are cheaper and better. Not even these developing countries you mention are building the kind of crap like the soviets did. Several countries are buying canadian CANDU-model reactors, very effective and safe reactors those.
Also we have the IAEA for a reason.
@25:
I don’t think you mentioned that Chernobyl was the result of a Nuclear Accident.
Why should I mention what everybody knows? I don’t think people will start to think it was a stuffed animal accident. There’s no similarities between Chernobyl type plants and western plants. The differences has been explained in detail before. Chernobyl was a insane design to begin with, made to create weapons grade plutonium amongst other things and the military kepts its operators in the dark about several of it’s rather unique properties.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
And nuclear enthusiasts just couldn’t be ignoramuses?
Are you trying to imply something, if so just come out and say it for fucks sake. Otherwise state your reasons for this red herring fallacy.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
FF (22): Replace the flying squirrel with the Free Market.
How do you equate voluntary exchange (the basic principle of free market) with stopping construction by coercion, because flying squirrel droppings were found on the plot?
Oh yes, you’ve stated in some posts that you’re a welfare-statist, except it still doesn’t explain why you insist on such non-analogous, misleading comparisons.
Voluntary exchange (free market) improves human life, it does not destroy it.
Comment by MarkkuT — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
Photovoltaic cells require lots of fresh water and large amounts of energy to build,
I believe that large scale solar power generation is not based on photovoltaic cells. Solar troughs based on parabolic mirrors and heat exchange dominate the market currently. This is something that nuclear freaks consistently ignore. Not out of ignorance but rather vested interests, I think.
This, of course, does not apply to Finland, as solar power is not really applicable. Nevada is a different story altogether.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
“No thats according to dumbasses who know jack shit about nuclear power or anything at all really. You know, people who are ignoramuses.”
“And nuclear enthusiasts just couldn’t be ignoramuses?”
Well, if there are participants, such as “Grannies against nuclear power” and “Nuclear power youth” (heh, Kernkraftjugend), in the energy discussion in Finland, I would be inclined to think at least some members in both parties did not come to their standpoint solely through rigorous rational considerations.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Voluntary exchange (free market) improves human life, it does not destroy it.
I don’t know a simple enough way to put this for you to understand: if a plant upstream dumps PCBs in my drinking water (in the absence of evil welfare-statist legislation), am I then voluntarily imbibing them?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
“alternative sources are so diffuse and unreliable”
Are you joking? wind - may be, but light - diffuse and unreliable? yes, the technology needed to properly utilize this source of energy isn’t there now, but there have been many promising advances in recent years, and as i am sure you know, it has potential to power a lot more than calculators.
“Photovoltaic cells require lots of fresh water and large amounts of energy to build, this process also create huge amounts of extremely dangerous industrial waste”
yeah, the current process. that’s the problem. there are new processes being developed for extracting silicone from silica at much lower temperatures, designs which require significantly less raw materials with comparable efficiency, and new designs that allow for 30% efficiency, which is almost 3 times more than the efficiency of consumer solar cells, but still, obviously, there is a lot of room for improvement. there is also research into entirely different types which utilize quantum technologies and organic polymers. solar is definitely not at “full-stop”.
nuclear is not without fault when it comes to pollution either, even without the possible radioactive factor it’s a source of thermal pollution.
firstly, the reliability of reactors built in third-world countries and more importantly their ability to maintain them is doubtful. secondly, although CANDU is great and we are proud of it, when plans to put one on the outskirts of Toronto were announced no one was cheering. we built it but we don’t trust it enough to put it anywhere where it can do any substantial damage. the bottom line is nuclear cannot be avoided for now, but no matter how safe, no matter how good the designs, they cannot be perfect. as long as there is a even a slight chance of a significant accident, each new reactor we build is a ticking time bomb.
on the other hand, i’ve never heard of exploding radioactive solar cells.
Comment by Anna — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Interesting discussion, for a change.
One thing to keep in mind about nuclear reactors is that they’re rather devastating targets during wartime. Countries that build them on a large scale would be more inclined to agree to terms when confronted with an aggressor with missiles within range.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Aggressor with missiles in range?
Not a EU problem, you can offer free dental care to get them off your backs.
Comment by winter — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Are you joking? wind - may be, but light - diffuse and unreliable? yes, the technology needed to properly utilize this source of energy isn’t there now, but there have been many promising advances in recent years, and as i am sure you know, it has potential to power a lot more than calculators.
No I am not joking, I am telling you the cold and hard truth of the situation. The vauge promise that it’s going to get better in the future is one that is severly lacking. Yes it shows alot of hope if not desperation though in your need to believe the dream of sun, wind and water. Sorry to burst that bubble.
Wind is going to get better but nothing mind blowing, and absolutely never going to be as good as to be anything more than what it is meant to be. Which is to be a complementary energy source, while others provide the baseload.
yeah, the current process. that’s the problem. there are new processes being developed for extracting silicone from silica at much lower temperatures, designs which require significantly less raw materials with comparable efficiency, and new designs that allow for 30% efficiency, which is almost 3 times more than the efficiency of consumer solar cells, but still, obviously, there is a lot of room for improvement. there is also research into entirely different types which utilize quantum technologies and organic polymers. solar is definitely not at “full-stopâ€Â.
Actually it is, the efficiency gap that needs to be bridged here is indeed a full stop. I know of all these things yes and they are interesting and shows a bright future in various fields. Replacing fossil or nuclear fission and then fusion is never going to be one of those however.
nuclear is not without fault when it comes to pollution either, even without the possible radioactive factor it’s a source of thermal pollution.
I take you are thinking about things like the water vapor which nuclear produces and warm water being put into lakes in certain places? Do you really think either will ever be as bad as current coal burning?
firstly, the reliability of reactors built in third-world countries and more importantly their ability to maintain them is doubtful. secondly, although CANDU is great and we are proud of it, when plans to put one on the outskirts of Toronto were announced no one was cheering. we built it but we don’t trust it enough to put it anywhere where it can do any substantial damage. the bottom line is nuclear cannot be avoided for now, but no matter how safe, no matter how good the designs, they cannot be perfect.
The fears of people who have been subject to decades of fearmongering from the media, aren’t a good yarstick for nuclear powers pros and cons. NIMBY(Not In My Backyard) is a phenomenon that demonstrates the sheep like mentality of people rather than reflect upon nuclear power in any way.
I would love a nuclear plant to be built here.
as long as there is a even a slight chance of a significant accident, each new reactor we build is a ticking time bomb.
This comparison of nuclear reactors and time bombs is untrue. Nuclear is by far the safest energy source we have, hydropower has killed more people, coal as well. You should fear wood burning more than nuclear power, the wastes wood burning puts out in sweden alone contributes to more cancer deaths every three years than Chernobyl will in 50 years. Living in stockholm exposes you to more than twice the amount of radiation than being in an australian uranium mine. These are some things worth considering when gauging what is actually dangerous and what is not.
If nuclear is a ticking time bomb then the other sources of energy we have are already exploding and nobody cares about that, nobody cares about the hundreds of thousands of tons spewed into the atmosphere by coal plants either despite the near panic-like fear there is radiation.
on the other hand, i’ve never heard of exploding radioactive solar cells.
Yet their implementation would be far more ecologically devastating than nuclear power.
Then again western nuclear reactors don’t explode either, they lack certain insane design parameters, things that where recognized to be insane well before Chernobyl. The worst we ever had was from a now obsolete generation II reactor in TMI which hurt nobody and could have given a person no more radiation than what one would recieve from a chest x-ray.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
MarkkuT #21
Great attitude, that kind of view point on life is going to drive our species to extinction (They are just animals, (like we aren’t.) and what global warming, let’s just consume and consume surely it’s the right way to go) Nature will have it’s payback but maybe after the human species is dead and long gone, a more intelligent species will rise from our ashes ones it has enough lebensraum
Comment by P — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Ah the nukes are bad theory. Just in the hands of Iran.
And just where do you think oil prices will go (How high) when Iran has a nuke bomb.
My guess, one can expect a 3x increase in oil prices, to say $200 a barrel of oil.
Wind and solar finally become viable above $100 a barrel of oil.
Nuke power production is viable right now. Just look at who is making huge amounts of money in the power generation business.
Comment by winter — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Great attitude, that kind of view point on life is going to drive our species to extinction
But who cares as long as the Market is “Free”, right?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
I believe that large scale solar power generation is not based on photovoltaic cells. Solar troughs based on parabolic mirrors and heat exchange dominate the market currently. This is something that nuclear freaks consistently ignore. Not out of ignorance but rather vested interests, I think.
Nuclear freaks? I guess thats how it is when you dare go against the holy grails of solar and wind. Secondly it’s a perfectly valid point because a large part of the solar market involves photovoltaic cells, the other type of solar generation doesn’t solve the problem that the first one has either, namely that of requiring to be built on a massive scale and wasting huge amounts of finite resources and causing ecological disruption. That is ofcourse only valid if we tried to do something stupid with the technolgy, something it wasn’t made for, like say replacing fossils or nuclear instead of using it as a completmentary source.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
@35
you misunderstand, i agree that nuclear is far better than coal. i disagree however that nuclear is as good as it gets.for now it is the best option, but the focus should not be on trying to make it a sustainable long term solution as the article suggests, but on developing other energy sources.
yes, solar power will not become a major source of electricity in the next 10 years, may be no even 50 years from now, but it has potential to be some day, and judging from the advanced we’ve made in recent years “some day” is not too far away. based on research that is being done today it can clearly be seen that solar power can be cheap, efficient, and environmentally friendly, we just need more research to perfect the necessary techniques.
Despite what you may say, complete safety is never an option for nuclear. new safety measures and reactors are all measures of containment, not a guarantee that nothing will go wrong. and yes, water vapour and warm water being dumped into lakes was exactly what i was talking about, it may not seem significant on the large scale, but it is damaging to the ecosystem of the lake and surrounding landmass. in addition to this, nuclear plants require maintenance of extensive infrastructure for power delivery, and there is a lot of evidence indicating that high-voltage power lines increase the incidence of cancer in people living near by.
this is something that would not apply to solar power, since generation wont be centralized, it doesn’t apply to wind power because we are dealing with much smaller amounts, and while it may still apply to the larger hyroelectric generation plants, hyrdo power, much like nuclear, is not the ideal solution.
what you call NIMBY is the instinct for self-preservation. when 4+ mil people, or just my ass, for that matter, are at put at risk unnecessarily, any risk is too great imo. if you want to live next to a reactor somwehre in the wilderness up north, be my guest, but asking 4 mil people to do the same because of your personal conviction that nuclear is safe is just selfish.
Comment by Anna — Sun, Apr 30th, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
you misunderstand, i agree that nuclear is far better than coal. i disagree however that nuclear is as good as it gets.for now it is the best option, but the focus should not be on trying to make it a sustainable long term solution as the article suggests, but on developing other energy sources.
The only one that really matters is nuclear fusion. We don’t expect to need to build any more than the generation IV fission plants and then let them run until their end lifes and being replacing them with fusion. Sun, wind and water will not suffer from this because there is not much more you can squeeze out of them, and they wheren’t made to compete on this level either.
yes, solar power will not become a major source of electricity in the next 10 years, may be no even 50 years from now, but it has potential to be some day, and judging from the advanced we’ve made in recent years “some day†is not too far away. based on research that is being done today it can clearly be seen that solar power can be cheap, efficient, and environmentally friendly, we just need more research to perfect the necessary techniques.
*sigh* None of this will ever allow solar to become anything more than complementiary source of energy. A process cannot be 100% efficient but even if it could be in the case of solar then it still be require a massive investment because it would still require to be built in huge numbers. As it stands now even pushing 35% and above in the next 50 years is a pipe dream. Nuclear fusion is probably going commercial before Solar ever becomes viable. But then again solar isn’t meant to be anything but a complementiary source.
Despite what you may say, complete safety is never an option for nuclear.
Nor for any kind of power generation in existence. Nuclear is safe by any standard used. Only the irrational fear of what people don’t understand makes it stand out from the crowd.
new safety measures and reactors are all measures of containment, not a guarantee that nothing will go wrong.
You speak as if a nuclear reactor was a contained bomb or explosion on the verge of going up, barely contained. It is not so, nothing could be farther from the truth. A nuclear reactor cannot explode like an atom-bomb, the fuel rods only heat up when exposed to the moderating element, usually water. The worst that can happen is that the water for coolant dissapears somehow and the dozens active and inactive safety systems all fail, thus causing the reactor to melt. That is a worst case scenario with the same odds as being hit by a crashing plane. Hell the reactors outer housing are so sturdy a jumbo jet couldn’t penetrate it, if you’re worried about the “terrists”, even so a nuclear powerplant would probably be one of the worst choices for an attack by terrorists. Nuclear power plants in the US got their own snipers according to a friend who visited one.
and yes, water vapour and warm water being dumped into lakes was exactly what i was talking about, it may not seem significant on the large scale, but it is damaging to the ecosystem of the lake and surrounding landmass.
Assuming that is done. It is also not as damaging as say all the resources and pollution that solar and wind would eat up and produce in order to replace even one nuclear powerplant.
in addition to this, nuclear plants require maintenance of extensive infrastructure for power delivery,
And thats the way the grid is made, from top to bottom. An overhaul of this would be so extensive and economically damaging it would make covering the Nevada desert in solar plants look like a stroll in the park.
and there is a lot of evidence indicating that high-voltage power lines increase the incidence of cancer in people living near by.
I’m afraid you have now lost the last of your scientific crediblity. There is no evidence for this, none that passes peer-reviews by the scientific community. You do know that just by being on this planet you are exposing yourself to a magnetic field hundreds of times stronger than what comes of high voltage power lines?
Another nail in the coffin is that leukemia rates have been decreasing while at the same time exposure to magnetic fields have increased twentyfold over the last few decades.
I guess it’s the same phenomenon with magnetic fields as with radiation scare, they can’t be felt, tasted, seen, or touched. This makes them mysterious, easily portrayable as threatening.
this is something that would not apply to solar power, since generation wont be centralized, it doesn’t apply to wind power because we are dealing with much smaller amounts, and while it may still apply to the larger hyroelectric generation plants, hyrdo power, much like nuclear, is not the ideal solution.
See my earlier comments on the grid. And you are wrong. We do need these large plants providing a steady base load over large distances, there’s not just homes in question here but industry. The industry in sweden has already had some flight from the country due to their insane energy policies.
what you call NIMBY is the instinct for self-preservation. when 4+ mil people, or just my ass, for that matter, are at put at risk unnecessarily, any risk is too great imo. if you want to live next to a reactor somwehre in the wilderness up north, be my guest, but asking 4 mil people to do the same because of your personal conviction that nuclear is safe is just selfish.
It is an appeal to rationality. This is like people who don’t want “niggers” in their neighborhoods, I guess I am selfish for telling them that black people are people like anyone else then too.
Nomatter what you try to imply nuclear is still the safest energy source. As someone who has alof information regarding nuclear reactors and the workings of them and the plant I wouldn’t mind one in my own municipality. I would love one, it’d bring work and economic prosperity.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 1:56 am
i see now that we disagree on the main issue, that is whether alternative sources of energy have potential to ever become our main energy sources. clearly we come to different conclusions although we are looking at the same facts. looks like the only thing to do is to agree to disagree. as with your metaphor, which is btw completely out of place and incredibly insulting, each one of us has to fight for what she believes in.
as for power lines causing cancer, recent statistics support this statement, and considering that only 46% of studies done in the u.s. concluded that there was no correlation, i would rather err on the side of caution in saying that they are a health hazard.
but i bet you wouldn’t mind living under them just like you won’t mind living next to a reactor. damn your dream neighbourhood is ugly. but hey, we should all get what we deserve, so hope your dream becomes a reality.
Comment by Anna — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 6:13 am
Speaking of renewable energy, I don’t know how potential this method is for Finland as my knowledge on waves in Gulf of Finland/Bothnia is limited to say the least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
I did read an article recently that they had started few prototypes up in Australia and with great success.
Comment by Mr. S — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 11:24 am
It’s riddled with technical problems as far as I’ve heard, the sea isn’t mercifull to the plants. Lots of wear and tear. If they get it better then I guess it’s got about the same potential as wind power. A nice complementiary powersource in other words.
Well my metaphor wasn’t meant to be nice and cuddly, it was meant to shock and provoke.
Having a nuclear reactor in the same municipality isn’t the same as in the same neighborhood, for starters it’s way too big.
Also what research do you refer to? The only research papers I have seen have been so badly done as to fail peer-reviews by other scientists. I would like some links.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
FF (31): I don’t know a simple enough way to put this for you to understand: if a plant upstream dumps PCBs in my drinking water (in the absence of evil welfare-statist legislation), am I then voluntarily imbibing them.
Solution in a welfare-state: Legislate, regulate, tax. Never mind that the new legislation, regulations and taxation also affect all of the other factories that haven’t dumped PCB in your drinking water.
In a (hypothetical) libertarian state: Demonstrate harm (by having the water analyzed), get restitution from your insurance agency, let your insurance agency deal with the factory.
Except you’re not interested in this, since you’re convinced that “state” is the only possible method of organization for a civilization, and you vehemently object when somebody questions this conviction.
Comment by MarkkuT — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
Well I don’t see why there shouldn’t be laws against dumping PCB’s in water, it should be a simple matter of breaking the law. Why this should relate to a welfare state I don’t know. Even a libertarian state must have such rudimentiary laws.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
Thank you for the interesting, reasoned comment.
Exactly. Dumping PCBs in water should be a simple matter of criminal law. For historical reasons it has not been that, but instead it has been used as an excuse for creation of EPA in the States and similar offices in Europe.
The rudimentary laws in a libertarian society would be something like “if A does demonstrable damage to B, then A is liable to pay double the damage to B” (criminal legislation), and “if A and B make an agreement, and A breaks the agreement, then A is liable to pay the agreed-on penalty for breaking the agreement to B” (civil legislation).
In a stateless (anarcho-capitalist) libertarian society these laws would be codified in contracts between various parties (the land-owner and his insurance agency X, the factory owner and his insurance agency Y, and the contract between insurance agencies X and Y for arbitration in cases like this). Or in case of a minarchy they could be just about the only laws.
In case of PCB in water, the damage should be simple to demonstrate, and this would make it a criminal matter. There would be no need for specific legislation, since this law could be applied to your case of PCB in water from a factory upstream.
Comment by MarkkuT — Mon, May 1st, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
In a (hypothetical) libertarian state: Demonstrate harm (by having the water analyzed), get restitution from your insurance agency, let your insurance agency deal with the factory.
Hypothetical indeed. I would have a hard time concentrating on my day job, though, as I’d be busy analysing air, water and soil samples on my back yard. Not to mention spending all my money on lawyers.
Of course, the issue of “demonstrable damage” is not quite as simple, as evidenced by the current controversy over global warming. And if you ask market-worshippers of any ilk, most environmental issues are just results of overactive hippie imaginations, so in most cases I would be expecting zero dollars. Also, putting a price tag on these things is somewhat problematic. What if I don’t want PCBs in my soil and drinking water? What if money doesn’t make it all right for me?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, May 2nd, 2006 @ 12:44 am
Except you’re not interested in this, since you’re convinced that “state†is the only possible method of organization for a civilization, and you vehemently object when somebody questions this conviction.
It is not the only possible one, but by far the most efficient one for all but the most primitive hunter-gatherer cultures. Anarchy has been tried. There are reasons why we have states now.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, May 2nd, 2006 @ 12:47 am
FF (49): It [state] is not the only possible one, but by far the most efficient one for all but the most primitive hunter-gatherer cultures.
Can you please prove that assertion, or cite a proof that I can evaluate independently? Saying it doesn’t make it so.
For an a priori proof of efficiency of voluntary cooperation as compared to a coercive system, please consider this:
In any project based on voluntary cooperation, the parties can use all of their resources on the project itself. In any project based on coercion, some portion of the resources must be used for coercion. Thus, ceteris paribus, voluntary cooperation is a more efficient method of organization than coercion.
Of course, if you want a coercive system where the victims pay for the upkeeping of the coercive system, then the state is unsurpassed in efficiency. Its only failure in that regard is that its own success will also destroy it.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.†–Bastiat, The Law (1850)
Comment by MarkkuT — Tue, May 2nd, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
The only legal system I need is my trusty old Colt, pardner… Judge, jury and executioner all in one… :p
Comment by Captain Haddock — Tue, May 2nd, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
“In any project based on voluntary cooperation, the parties can use all of their resources on the project itself. In any project based on coercion, some portion of the resources must be used for coercion. Thus, ceteris paribus, voluntary cooperation is a more efficient method of organization than coercion.”
You forget the human factor. Do you honestly expect everybody to use all of their resources voluntarily to the project? It is the same problem as it is with PCB in drinking water; no corporation will voluntarily just pay you money for if there is no legislation “coercing” to do it. Well, I’m not sure if you mean’t your idea to be interpreted like that, so correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by lothar — Tue, May 2nd, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Can you please prove that assertion, or cite a proof that I can evaluate independently? Saying it doesn’t make it so.
A look at the examples of existing anarchies in the world suffices, I should say.
For an a priori proof of efficiency of voluntary cooperation as compared to a coercive system, please consider this:
In any project based on voluntary cooperation, the parties can use all of their resources on the project itself.
But what is voluntary cooperation? True market believers would like to base everything on mutually binding contracts, but having wasted my share of time on projects based on this kind of “voluntary cooperation” where most of the energy was spent on bickering over the particulars of the contract, I am not entirely convinced.
By the way, I’d like an answer to #48.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, May 3rd, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
FF (48): Hypothetical indeed. I would have a hard time concentrating on my day job, though, as I’d be busy analysing air, water and soil samples on my back yard. Not to mention spending all my money on lawyers.
…
Also, putting a price tag on these things is somewhat problematic. What if I don’t want PCBs in my soil and drinking water? What if money doesn’t make it all right for me?
That is a good question.
In a hypothetical libertarian society:
If your land contains PCB when you purchase it, you would have to clean it up yourself. If you stipulated in the purchase contract that you want PCB-free land, the seller would be liable for the cleaning costs or whatever penalties you had agreed on.
Instead of spending your time measuring the pollution counts, you could simply purchase a zero-PCBs insurance policy for your land and water supply. For plots of land without chemical factories upstream it should be quite cheap. If your plot of land is downstream from a chemical factory, the price of the zero-PCB insurance would be the signal to sell that plot to somebody who doesn’t care so much about the dangers of PCBs, and purchase another plot somewhere else.
That’s the thing: in a libertarian society you’re responsible for your own life. You would have to use your own resources to ensure the purity of your land and water supply, not resources stolen from everybody else.
Comment by MarkkuT — Wed, May 3rd, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
FF (53): A look at the examples of existing anarchies in the world suffices, I should say.
Nah. Empiricism doesn’t cut it, since it is impossible to do laboratory tests on economic issues. A priori deduction and praxeology is a working method to learn to understand economic relationships and phenomena.
Besides, the existing anarchies are actually quite interesting examples: for example, comparing Puntland and Somaliland (northern parts of Somalia) to Southern Somalia is quite instructive. And if we examine the opposite case, states with the most pervasive state (North Korea comes to mind), they’re not doing too well, are they?
But what is voluntary cooperation?
Two or more people acting towards the same goal without compulsion. The simplest instance of this is the voluntary exchange.
True market believers would like to base everything on mutually binding contracts, but having wasted my share of time on projects based on this kind of “voluntary cooperation†where most of the energy was spent on bickering over the particulars of the contract, I am not entirely convinced.
That’s the ceteris paribus (other things being equal): if you have the bickering in the project based on voluntary cooperation, you would have the same bickering in the project based on coercion.
Other than that, you’re talking about empiricism, and a priori deduction doesn’t provide answers to that. It can be used to analyze phenomena and deduce why specific facts or effects follow from certain principles.
Comment by MarkkuT — Thu, May 4th, 2006 @ 12:38 am
Instead of spending your time measuring the pollution counts, you could simply purchase a zero-PCBs insurance policy for your land and water supply.
Of course, providing that such a policy existed. While we’re at it, I’d also like a zero-PAH, zero-Pb, zero-Cd, zero-Ni, zero-NOx, zero-dioxin, zero-BFR and zero-small particulate policies, for starters. Could the Market Fairy get me those? Please?
Life is enviably simple when one isn’t overly concerned with facts.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, May 4th, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
the price of the zero-PCB insurance would be the signal to sell that plot to somebody who doesn’t care so much about the dangers of PCBs, and purchase another plot somewhere else.
Not to mention “love it or leave it” seeming to be the libertarian answer to the problem. I do recall someone bawling about Finnsh taxes and refusing to move elsewhere….
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, May 4th, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
FF (56): I’m a libertarian, not a prophet, omniscient or a specialist in everything. In my case it simply means that after careful study I’ve become convinced that it is possible and desirable to have a society that isn’t based on aggression. If you can convince me otherwise, I’m listening.
It is an interesting pastime to speculate, how negative externalities would be addressed in a libertarian society, but it is, in the end, impossible to know what sort of solutions would actually be arrived at.
“Market Fairy”, eh? In Finland the socialist state has crowded out the Market Fairy.
Finnish constitution:
Section 20 - Responsibility for the environment
Nature and its biodiversity, the environment and the national heritage are the responsibility of everyone.
The public authorities shall endeavour to guarantee for everyone the right to a healthy environment and for everyone the possibility to influence the decisions that concern their own living environment.
FF (57): “Love it or leave it.”
If you prefer that particular plot of land to any other plot of land in spite of its PCB content, then you obviously should hold on to it. I’m not trying to tell you what you should choose.
Comment by MarkkuT — Thu, May 4th, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
Uh, Finland doesn’t have a nuclear past, but a future.
The bedrock of Finland is one of the oldest and stablest in the world. Finland is smack in the middle of the Eurasian continent, far away from volcanic zones, with a billion-year-old, stable, earthquake-free granite bedrock. Only Australia has older bedrock, I believe.
Comment by sepisp — Fri, May 5th, 2006 @ 5:40 am
I’m a libertarian, not a prophet, omniscient or a specialist in everything. In my case it simply means that after careful study I’ve become convinced that it is possible and desirable to have a society that isn’t based on aggression. If you can convince me otherwise, I’m listening.
I believe that the burden of proof lies with the one crying for change.
It is an interesting pastime to speculate, how negative externalities would be addressed in a libertarian society, but it is, in the end, impossible to know what sort of solutions would actually be arrived at.
So, we know that the current system is terribly wrong and we are dead certain of infinitely superior alternatives, we just don’t have a clue of what they’d be. Wow. I’m speechless.
If you prefer that particular plot of land to any other plot of land in spite of its PCB content, then you obviously should hold on to it. I’m not trying to tell you what you should choose.
I presume that this applies to Finland and taxes as well. Put up and shut up, eh?
Of course, this discussion has hitherto assumed that PCBs and other similar substances are stationary and do not, for instance, accumulate and enrich in the food chain…
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, May 5th, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
FF (60): So, we know that the current system is terribly wrong and we are dead certain of infinitely superior alternatives, we just don’t have a clue of what they’d be.
Exactly. Now that we know that there are superior alternatives to the current modes of action, the rational course of action is to start to pursue them. Quite naturally this is exactly what is happening in the free market: for example, in the field of arbitration there are quite a few market-based alternatives to state monopoly courts.
Wow. I’m speechless.
I’m happy you agree, and the enormity of this issue tends to strike me dumbfounded every now and then, too…
Comment by MarkkuT — Mon, May 22nd, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
http://wgwrgfsfsqgwa.host.com
desk3
[url=http://wgwsgfsfsqgwa.host.com]desk4[/url]
[link=http://wgwagfsfsqgwa.host.com]desk6[/link]
Comment by Allennok — Sun, Oct 21st, 2007 @ 9:04 pm