Whole Earth Discipline: New Nukes
Nov. 11th, 2009 11:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
james_davis_nicollBrand's annotations
I've been trying to stretch reading this out over as long a period as possible but of the chapters so far, this is the one most likely to send Brand's circle of friends and colleagues into paroxysms of rage.
The same preaching the choir warnign applies to this as with the previous chapter. Apply own grain of salt. I am guardedly hopeful this will displace Beckmann in some circles.
This would be the "on reflection, nuclear power looks pretty good when compared to the alternatives" chapter. There are two reasons for this: nuclear power is pretty darned good considered on its own merits and some of the alternatives are pretty fucking awful, at least as we currently use them. The worst is conventional coal, which tends to be dirty and even when clean(ish) dumps CO2 into the atmosphere.
One of the more hopeful comments in this book is that the younger Greens don't appear to be as tainted by Cold War concerns as the geezers, which implies to me that even if older Greens were not changing their minds on this, as some are, we can allow time and mortality to tilt the balance in the Green community in a more pro-nuclear direction. In any case, what American and other Western Greens think isn't going to define what the Chinese and Indians do.
Except perhaps for Soviet nuclear waste. Those guys were wacky.
He gets into this idea more later but some reactor products already have commercial applications, so some of the material produced will not need to be stored in waste facilities.
The greenhouse gas byproduct of nuclear is non-zero but much smaller than coal.
A considerable portion of this chapter deals with environmentalists who like Brand were hostile or at least dubious of the benefits of nuclear power who have come to support it or who are least less negative about it than they used to be.
There's a discussion of Chernobyl, the most notorious nuclear accident to date. Thus far, the known human toll from radiation damage has been relatively low (although Brand points out some of the deaths would have been lost in the normal background noise of expected cancer deaths). There have been benefits for the environment, as it turns out increased levels of radiation are still less damaging to many species than trying to live in close proximity to humans (I do not myself advocate this form of wildlife protection).
Annoyingly, he seems to think hydrogen is an energy source.
I am no fan of hydrogen as a power storage medium (he missed its low energy/volume ratio) but this chapter is about primary energy sources and there are no practical sources of pure H2 at hand. It would all have to be produced using some other form of energy (which he points out later in the chapter). I don't think discussion of hydrogen needed to be in this section.
I don't know enough about the effects of low level radiation to comment. That said, what's up with Iran's background radiation level?
Many nations appear to be planning to expand their nuclear bases. It will be interesting to see if these plans are carried out. I will admit I am not entirely keen on Russia expanding its nuclear base, but only because I am not entirely certain their practices are necessary that much better than the Soviets'.
I am torn between "that should end well," and "AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH."
He's bullish on solar. Well, he's been bullish on solar for as long as I have been aware of him. The advantages of solar (there's lots of it) and disadvantages (it's diffuse) are well known and in fact it makes a larger contribution to our power use than he may realize (or alternatively, he only counts direct solar); hydroelectric is just a very inefficient way to turn solar power into useful energy and hydro makes a major contribution to power generation.
This is a handy example of how books change between the ARC stage and publication. My copy does not have the bit about the company in California. Although pointing and laughing at the above does have its appeal, I will limit mself to a polite expression of extreme skepticism that either of the two plans above will come to anything and point out the vast chasm between proposal and accomplishment.
Drifting off-topic: I am a little puzzled at how positively hydro seems to be seen by some Greens. It's not that I am against it but it does have a huge footprint and it does involve dramatic changes in local ecosystems. Many proposed hydro-electric projects also seem by their nature to involve displacing huge numbers of people. It also has the potential for truly apocalyptic accidents; the usual example is Egypt, where a majority of the population could die if the Aswan dam ever goes, but a repeat of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam with the Three Gorges Dam would also be highly undesirable.
It's interesting to watch the rediscovery of dirigism in the US.
I am not as concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation as some (every nation should have a dozen or so nukes to help their neighbors maintain tranquility) but I know some people disagree with me and Brand has taken time to address the matter.
What he doesn't dwell on the fact that a nation determined to put their hands on nuclear weapons usually manages it, provided they are not Iraq. He does point out that traditionally commercial nuclear power generation has not been a necessary precondition for acquiring nukes, so blocking commercial nuclear power generation may not have the non-proliferation effects desired.
I feel I must apply the same skepticism about the Wonder Reactors of Tomorrow as I do to SPS but at least in the case of nuclear we do have examples of functioning reactors to hand, so improvements seem like a reasonable expectation.
I've been trying to stretch reading this out over as long a period as possible but of the chapters so far, this is the one most likely to send Brand's circle of friends and colleagues into paroxysms of rage.
The same preaching the choir warnign applies to this as with the previous chapter. Apply own grain of salt. I am guardedly hopeful this will displace Beckmann in some circles.
This would be the "on reflection, nuclear power looks pretty good when compared to the alternatives" chapter. There are two reasons for this: nuclear power is pretty darned good considered on its own merits and some of the alternatives are pretty fucking awful, at least as we currently use them. The worst is conventional coal, which tends to be dirty and even when clean(ish) dumps CO2 into the atmosphere.
One of the more hopeful comments in this book is that the younger Greens don't appear to be as tainted by Cold War concerns as the geezers, which implies to me that even if older Greens were not changing their minds on this, as some are, we can allow time and mortality to tilt the balance in the Green community in a more pro-nuclear direction. In any case, what American and other Western Greens think isn't going to define what the Chinese and Indians do.
More interesting to me is the hazard comparison between coal waste and nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is minuscule in size—one Coke can’s worth per person-lifetime of electricity if it was all nuclear, Rip Anderson likes to point out. Coal waste is massive—68 tons of solid stuff and 77 tons of carbon dioxide per person-lifetime of strictly coal electricity. The nuclear waste goes into dry cask storage, where it is kept in a small area, locally controlled and monitored. You always know exactly what it’s doing.
Except perhaps for Soviet nuclear waste. Those guys were wacky.
A 1-gigawatt nuclear plant converts 20 tons of fuel a year into 20 tons of waste, which is so dense it fills just two dry-storage casks, each one a cylinder 18 feet high, 10 feet in diameter.
He gets into this idea more later but some reactor products already have commercial applications, so some of the material produced will not need to be stored in waste facilities.
By contrast, a 1-gigawatt coal plant burns 3 million tons of fuel a year and produces 7 million tons of CO2, all of which immediately goes into everyone’s atmosphere, where no one can control it, and no one knows what it’s really up to.
The greenhouse gas byproduct of nuclear is non-zero but much smaller than coal.
A considerable portion of this chapter deals with environmentalists who like Brand were hostile or at least dubious of the benefits of nuclear power who have come to support it or who are least less negative about it than they used to be.
There's a discussion of Chernobyl, the most notorious nuclear accident to date. Thus far, the known human toll from radiation damage has been relatively low (although Brand points out some of the deaths would have been lost in the normal background noise of expected cancer deaths). There have been benefits for the environment, as it turns out increased levels of radiation are still less damaging to many species than trying to live in close proximity to humans (I do not myself advocate this form of wildlife protection).
Annoyingly, he seems to think hydrogen is an energy source.
The great Green hope, hydrogen, has reactivity that weakens pipes, volatility that makes it the most leak-prone of gases, and an ignition point so low that a cellphone can ignite it; and it burns with an invisible flame.
I am no fan of hydrogen as a power storage medium (he missed its low energy/volume ratio) but this chapter is about primary energy sources and there are no practical sources of pure H2 at hand. It would all have to be produced using some other form of energy (which he points out later in the chapter). I don't think discussion of hydrogen needed to be in this section.
I don't know enough about the effects of low level radiation to comment. That said, what's up with Iran's background radiation level?
Many nations appear to be planning to expand their nuclear bases. It will be interesting to see if these plans are carried out. I will admit I am not entirely keen on Russia expanding its nuclear base, but only because I am not entirely certain their practices are necessary that much better than the Soviets'.
Right now Russia is building 35-megawatt reactors that float on barges, for use starting in 2010 along the nation’s newly navigable Arctic coast, [...]
I am torn between "that should end well," and "AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH."
He's bullish on solar. Well, he's been bullish on solar for as long as I have been aware of him. The advantages of solar (there's lots of it) and disadvantages (it's diffuse) are well known and in fact it makes a larger contribution to our power use than he may realize (or alternatively, he only counts direct solar); hydroelectric is just a very inefficient way to turn solar power into useful energy and hydro makes a major contribution to power generation.
(Space-based solar, however, could feed directly into baseload, microwaving the juice from orbit down to surface rectennas. Sunlight in space has three times the intensity of the pallid stuff on Earth, and it’s always on, so solar panels in space have three times the sun exposure of solar panels on roofs. That adds up to a ninefold advantage. Expensive commute, though. Japan is planning a 1-gigawatt space solar facility nevertheless, and a California utility claims it will have a 200-megawatt solar farm in orbit by 2016.)
This is a handy example of how books change between the ARC stage and publication. My copy does not have the bit about the company in California. Although pointing and laughing at the above does have its appeal, I will limit mself to a polite expression of extreme skepticism that either of the two plans above will come to anything and point out the vast chasm between proposal and accomplishment.
Drifting off-topic: I am a little puzzled at how positively hydro seems to be seen by some Greens. It's not that I am against it but it does have a huge footprint and it does involve dramatic changes in local ecosystems. Many proposed hydro-electric projects also seem by their nature to involve displacing huge numbers of people. It also has the potential for truly apocalyptic accidents; the usual example is Egypt, where a majority of the population could die if the Aswan dam ever goes, but a repeat of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam with the Three Gorges Dam would also be highly undesirable.
It's interesting to watch the rediscovery of dirigism in the US.
I am not as concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation as some (every nation should have a dozen or so nukes to help their neighbors maintain tranquility) but I know some people disagree with me and Brand has taken time to address the matter.
What he doesn't dwell on the fact that a nation determined to put their hands on nuclear weapons usually manages it, provided they are not Iraq. He does point out that traditionally commercial nuclear power generation has not been a necessary precondition for acquiring nukes, so blocking commercial nuclear power generation may not have the non-proliferation effects desired.
I feel I must apply the same skepticism about the Wonder Reactors of Tomorrow as I do to SPS but at least in the case of nuclear we do have examples of functioning reactors to hand, so improvements seem like a reasonable expectation.
