US Politics: Shryke and Commodore agree (and other signs and portents)

[emberling]

We can probably do better, but putting a dam up is going to alter the river significantly, with important ecological impacts. I'm not sure how that stacks up against nuclear plants' possible danger. How does one weigh one type of negative against another, which are so different but both are quite horrific in their own ways?

For one of the nuclear plants in my state they dammed up a river anyway just to be able to cool off the reactor core effectively.

They also built it directly on top of a well-known active fault line so it's not clear whether disrupting the environment was actually necessary or if the builders of this project were just running around with their pants on their heads.

[BloodRider]

I've never yet met a proponent of nuclear power who wants to live next door to one of these things.

'Cmon man. I am, for example all for sewage treatment, but I don't want to live next door to it.

[Ormond]

'Cmon man. I am, for example all for sewage treatment, but I don't want to live next door to it.

You know, if they did some nice landscaping, I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a sewage treatment plant myself. I'd rather deal with the very small chance of a radiation leak at the power plant versus the almost certain regular unpleasant smells from the sewage plant.

[ThinkerX]

It's tiny. But with that being said, is there a big push anywhere to build more dams? If so, I haven't heard of it.

That would be here in Alaska. Long term plan finally getting underway to damn the Susitna River, part of a statewide energy initiative. If it happens - unlikely at this point - there is also the Pebble Mine project near Lake Iliamna, which involved a massive earthwork damn as part of the mining process.

Tidal power? I live less than ten miles from the location of pilot plant using this method. Being built (at least the groundwork) right now.

That said...oil drilling can be dang disruptive to the environment: spills, toxic dump sites, that sort of thing. Plus there's all the emissions into the atmosphere - the emissions from coal constitute a major health hazard. About twenty five years ago, I was a security guard outside a drill site that had a two acre pond of pure poison all of about fifty yards from a salmon spawning stream which almost came apart on them.

[TrueMetis]

It's tiny. But with that being said, is there a big push anywhere to build more dams? If so, I haven't heard of it.

I recall a bit about dams in the Amazon, which I hope isn't true.

[all swedes are racist]

Locksnow,

Hey, we eat them after boiling them alive. Is a little cardo before they go really much to ask?

Speaking for lazy lobsters throughout New England... Running sucks. Bring on the drawn butter.

Paid for by the Committee to Make Those Beltway Insider Chesapeake Bay Soft-Shelled Crabs Do It.

[Lyanna Stark]

I've never yet met a proponent of nuclear power who wants to live next door to one of these things.

*waves*

Hi, how do you do?

The thing is cooled by sea water as well and the only thing they've noticed is that the sea water directly off the coast of the nuclear plant is nearly 0,5C warmer than the surrounding sea. This is a change that is small enough not to impact the ecosystem in major ways and the plant can go on to produce its 24TWh a year. (According to wiki it is the 20th largest nuclear plant in the world, looking at capacity. Only Palo Verde in the US has larger capacity, all other US plants are listed as having lower capacity, so "my" nuclear plant is not a tiny little blob either. It supposedly just somewhat bigger than Chernobyl actually.)

Obviously, there are good ways and bad ways to go about building nuclear plants and using nuclear power, but to dismiss it out of hand is unscientific and irrational. However, the future of hydro power seems far more likely to be more small scale operations and not large scale ones, as they tend to be far more damaging to the environment, not to mention inefficient. If you're looking at the energy produced per square meter you'll get a far higher efficiency out of a nuclear plant. You'll also most likely get a higher efficiency out of a small hydro plant than a big reservoir, since reservoirs in themselves can be extremely tricky to manage, not to mention all the downstream issues.

I recall a bit about dams in the Amazon, which I hope isn't true.

Brazil and China are probably the main big dam builders currently.

You know, if they did some nice landscaping, I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a sewage treatment plant myself. I'd rather deal with the very small chance of a radiation leak at the power plant versus the almost certain regular unpleasant smells from the sewage plant.

You should come visit Ringhals. :)

[Larry of the Lake]

I think nuclear is the way to go, especially if we continue to modernize / demo older facilities as needed to make them safer. If we start reducing oil subsidies and putting more money into decommissioning/building/research of nuclear sites we'll have.a much smoother transition to the post petroleum world.

[aceluby]

I think nuclear is the way to go, especially if we continue to modernize / demo older facilities as needed to make them safer. If we start reducing oil subsidies and putting more money into decommissioning/building/research of nuclear sites we'll have.a much smoother transition to the post petroleum world.

Building new nuclear is a BAD idea IMO. It's very expensive, it requires LOTS of fossil fuels to create, and doesn't see a positive return on those investments for 20-30 years. We should be modernizing old facilities that have already paid the bulk of these costs already. And this is not taking any safety concerns into the decision.

[paddington]

Modernizing maybe more expensive than just building new ones. Also not every exsisting structure maybe capabale of being modernized. I would assume there is good reason for them to decide building new is better than refitting old power stations.

[Suttree]

Pretty awesome direction things are heading:

Robert Reich

Fifty years ago, the Free Speech movement was born at the University of California at Berkeley, where I teach. 1964 was also the year the Civil Rights Act was enacted. The following year came the Voting Rights Act. America still had a long way to go, but seemed committed to enhancing the voices of people who for too long had been silenced by repression in all its forms.

Fast forward: The 400 richest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom half put together, and the Supreme Court has determined money is speech and corporations are people under the First Amendment. As a result, big money is now engulfing our democracy and drowning out the voices of average Americans. And the Court has also decided the Voting Rights Act no longer constrains many states with long histories of discrimination from erecting new barriers to voting, which they're busily doing. Have we advanced over the last half century?

[aceluby]

Modernizing maybe more expensive than just building new ones. Also not every exsisting structure maybe capabale of being modernized. I would assume there is good reason for them to decide building new is better than refitting old power stations.

Why would you ever assume that? Fact is that all of the costs for nuclear are up front, economically and environmentally. The older facilities have already been paid for and are (finally) getting the return on those initial investments.

[Swordfish]

Wait... Hydro is bad now? When did this happen? Goodness gracious.... You want to know what a major barrier to progress away from oil is, there are plenty of clues in this thread.

[The Notorious]

What are these clues, swordfish?

[TerraPrime]

Oh oh oh!!! Is this a game of Blue's Clue? Please say yes!!

[lokisnow]

Nice article decomposing the elements of Democrats disadvantages in the House races.

https://medium.com/theli-st-medium/midterms-2014-how-redistricting-turnout-disparity-and-the-big-sort-make-this-a-tough-year-for-c096317e5065

[Mudguard]

That said...oil drilling can be dang disruptive to the environment: spills, toxic dump sites, that sort of thing. Plus there's all the emissions into the atmosphere - the emissions from coal constitute a major health hazard. About twenty five years ago, I was a security guard outside a drill site that had a two acre pond of pure poison all of about fifty yards from a salmon spawning stream which almost came apart on them.

That's a good point. You have to consider how much damage is caused by getting the fuel for your power plants. For nuclear, that would be the damage to the environment from mining uranium. It generally doesn't look very pretty, and as you can imagine, there are lots of things to worry about when you are extracting and enriching radioactive materials.

[Swordfish]

What are these clues, swordfish?

We must get away from a petroleum based culture or it will be the end of all humanity!!!!!

But hydro is bad because... fish.....

Solar is bad because... turtles.....

Nuclear is bad because.. Japan/Chernobyl

Wind is bad because.. birds and noise.....

Tidal is bad because.. [insert reason]

And so on and so forth, ad nauseum.....

[karaddin]

So clearly we should implement alternatives without considering the environmental impact, that can't possibly go wrong.

[TrueMetis]

We must get away from a petroleum based culture or it will be the end of all humanity!!!!!

But hydro is bad because... fish.....

Solar is bad because... turtles.....

Nuclear is bad because.. Japan/Chernobyl

Wind is bad because.. birds and noise.....

Tidal is bad because.. [insert reason]

And so on and so forth, ad nauseum.....

One of the big reasons for alternatives is that they impact the environment less, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the impact.

Hydro completely alters the ecology of the damned river, there are steps to reduce the impact like fish ladders but the impact is there.

Solar see's the temperature of the surrounding areas rise, and I'm sure there are other issues I'm not aware of.

Nuclear requires mining Uranium which has the same impact as most mining, and as noted by other posters have other effects on the local environment.

Wind does indeed kill birds, though less than oil and coal fired power plants, they also take up a lot of space an important consideration

Tidal will effect local marine life both from danger of the blades and noise (which has a well known effect on marine life) plus potential negative effects of altering the tides themselves.

All of these issues need to be understood and addressed, after all what's the point of switching to a cleaner energy source if we just fuck things up in new ways instead?