Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge

[durangodawood]

Ironically enough, modern nuclear is far safer than fossil fuels...yet the arguments against fossil fuels (mine included) often focus on the environmental impacts. For the people who have safety concerns about nuclear, you'd think conversations surrounding safety would be part of their repertoire when debating phasing out coal.

Point of reference:
View attachment 335996

The only one of the 3 renewables that's safer than Nuclear is Solar...Wind and Hydro power actually have a slightly higher death rate.


And to put it in perspective, Chernobyl is considered to be "the" nuclear incident...it's the go-to name people mention when discussing the risks. It's the "Hitler of Nuclear Energy", if you will, in the minds of people who oppose it.

The end result of that incident (the worst one that ever happened)?
134 people died between the period of a few weeks after the incident to 2006.
1,000 sq miles of exclusion zone (18 mile radius)

For Fukushima, how many deaths attributed to it? 1
Exclusion zone size? 300 sq miles (~6 mile radius)

Compare that to fossil fuels? They put up more daunting death numbers every year and destroy ecosystems a lot larger than that of an 18 mile radius.

The two worst nuclear disasters in the past 40 years have produced outcomes that are really "drop in the bucket" types of stats in the grand scheme of things.


Nuclear has progressed a lot. The same way a 2023 car is safer, has more rigorous testing standards, etc... than a car from 1986.

A pragmatic look at the numbers should lead people to a reasonable conclusion. The energy source (that's zero emission) that produces 20% of the world's energy supply has, in a period of 40 years, has only killed 135 people and rendered 1300 sq miles (of the 50 million sq mi of land area earth) unusable for the time being. (and context is everything... the big incident was the result of shoddy oversight by the USSR, and 2nd place one was the result of a once in a life time natural disaster)

But as both I and Belk have said...pick you poison. If you want low emission energy, and you want your fridge and lights to work without the impediment of rolling blackouts or having to begrudgingly go back to fossil fuels, nuclear has to be part of the conversation.

Well youre preaching to the choir here - as I thought I'd made clear. I was just pointing out the issue of public perception. Chernobyl is not "over" so long as theres a "exclusion zone".

People have a massive bias in favor of distributed risk over concentrated risk. So long as fossil fuels can place its concentrated risk in poor people zones, the rest of us prefer to roll the dice on its distributed pollution/health risk rather than having a nuke plant 50 miles down the road from our own house.

Nuke is complicated, scary, requires lots of trust, spooks people, lowers house values. Those are some of the psychological barriers to nuclear. The USA is also in an era where the "conservative" set are being trained to resist anything centralized and devalue the competence of govt to administer necessary oversight and safety compliance.

 

[Merrill]

Well youre preaching to the choir here - as I thought I'd made clear. I was just pointing out the issue of public perception. Chernobyl is not "over" so long as theres a "exclusion zone".

People have a massive bias in favor of distributed risk over concentrated risk. So long as fossil fuels can place its concentrated it its risk in poor people zones, the rest of us prefer to roll the dice on its distributed pollution/health risk rather than having a nuke plant 50 miles down the road from our own house.

Nuke is complicated, scary, requires lots of trust, spooks people, lowers house values. Those are some of the psychological barriers to nuclear. The USA is also in an era where the "conservative" set are being trained to resist anything centralized and devalue the competence of govt to administer necessary oversight and safety compliance.

Nuclear scares people because people don't understand nuclear

More people die every year from fossil fuels (pollution, accidents, etc.) than have died from the history of nuclear power AND the death toll from the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?

Fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous energy sources, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner.

ourworldindata.org

I would much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant

No one wants to live next to any kind of big energy plant

 

[Merrill]

I would encourage everyone here to watch the documentary "Pandora's Promise" which deals with nuclear power

and for a more politically-charged documentary, "Planet of the Humans"

It will become abundantly clear that solar cannot be the backbone of any national energy grid --the math doesn't even begin to work. A mid-range, 3rd generation nuclear plant generates more energy than a solar plant the size of New York City, and that power is not intermittent, and does not require fossil fuel backup.

While there are use-cases for solar, and we should use it, we have to realize it is inefficient, requires massive amounts of land to implement (destroying animal habitats), huge mining projects (some involving child-labor), and produces huge amounts of waste (panels last 20-30 years tops)

Germany shut down its nuclear plants and many of its fossil fuel plants, and converted to solar and wind. It now has some of the dirtiest air in Europe, worst CO2 emissions per capita (double that of France) and the highest energy costs in the world. The solar plants run on natural gas backup, and they have gone so far as to rip down wind farms in order to build coal plants in order to provide backup for the solar plants which cannot produce enough electricity. They have missed their emissions targets by a mile.

the whole thing is a total disaster, and illustrates what happens when public energy policy is made by environmentalists, and not energy experts and scientists.

China controls 70-87% of the world's rare-earth metals, and manufactures 75% of Lithium-ion batteries. It also produces 75% of the world's solar panels. The "green energy" initiative that relies entirely on solar and wind is entirely dependent on the CCP, and if they got mad, they could shut the whole thing down overnight. Geopolitical reliance of this level is a disaster waiting to happen.

we have to develop and implement 4th generation nuclear, and not go down the German road. If we choose the latter, millions of jobs will be lost and the environment will get trashed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well youre preaching to the choir here - as I thought I'd made clear. I was just pointing out the issue of public perception. Chernobyl is not "over" so long as theres a "exclusion zone".

People have a massive bias in favor of distributed risk over concentrated risk. So long as fossil fuels can place its concentrated risk in poor people zones, the rest of us prefer to roll the dice on its distributed pollution/health risk rather than having a nuke plant 50 miles down the road from our own house.

Nuke is complicated, scary, requires lots of trust, spooks people, lowers house values. Those are some of the psychological barriers to nuclear. The USA is also in an era where the "conservative" set are being trained to resist anything centralized and devalue the competence of govt to administer necessary oversight and safety compliance.

I think what you mentioned in the last part maybe highlights one aspect of the "perceived risk". But the memories of Chernobyl may not be the only barrier.

The very nomenclature of "Nuke", highlights another conflation that could be happening in the minds of a lot of people. Which is "nuclear" (especially when referred to as "nuke") is synonymous with "terrible weapons" in peoples' minds.

The concept of "potential exclusion zones", on their own, don't seem to seem to have the same level deterrence when the word "nuclear" doesn't come in front of it in the minds of a lot of people.

For instance, the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage that just happened last year resulted in an exclusion zone, yet people have largely stopped talking about it and moved onto other Russia/Ukraine happenings.

The East Palestine derailment caused ecological disruption, caused evacuation orders, and experts suggested that the danger zone (depending on wind speed) could've been upwards of an 100 mile radius, yet, the national conversation about that largely fizzled out after a few months and that hasn't really put a lot of people off of the concept of trains.

France still has a 460 sq mile exclusion zone "Zone rouge", that's heavily polluted arsenic and chlorine (a residual of WW1) -- 99% of plants still die in certain areas due to the high arsenic levels. Yet, the notion of using the chemical compounds in semiconductor factories doesn't seem to scare people...in fact, there are people who want to bring production of them to the US from Taiwan.

 

[durangodawood]

....For instance, the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage that just happened last year resulted in an exclusion zone....

Did it? Or is that just totally blowing up the significance of a temporary clean up site?

 

[FireDragon76]

Well youre preaching to the choir here - as I thought I'd made clear. I was just pointing out the issue of public perception. Chernobyl is not "over" so long as theres a "exclusion zone".

People have a massive bias in favor of distributed risk over concentrated risk. So long as fossil fuels can place its concentrated risk in poor people zones, the rest of us prefer to roll the dice on its distributed pollution/health risk rather than having a nuke plant 50 miles down the road from our own house.

Nuke is complicated, scary, requires lots of trust, spooks people, lowers house values. Those are some of the psychological barriers to nuclear. The USA is also in an era where the "conservative" set are being trained to resist anything centralized and devalue the competence of govt to administer necessary oversight and safety compliance.

It's what I call the Godzilla factor. The average person doesn't understand nuclear power or radiation, and doesn't particularly trust the institutions that built the nuclear age, which means that it's a bogieman filled in by pop culture memes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did it? Or is that just totally blowing up the significance of a temporary clean up site?

The Danish Navy and Swedish Coast Guard sent ships to monitor the discharge and to establish one exclusion zone of 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi) around the southernmost leak[2] and another of 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi) around the other three[3]

And per Reuters,
They referred to it as an exclusion zone...

A spokesman for the Swedish coast guard confirmed in an email that there was now an exclusion zone of five nautical miles around the leaks.

 

[Hank77]

Just info. I ordered propane this morning to fill our 500 gal. tank before winter. It cost $2.09 a gal. and last year at this same time, within 11 days, it was $2.39 a gal. from the same company. That was a pleasant surprise I was expecting it to be higher than last year.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Danish Navy and Swedish Coast Guard sent ships to monitor the discharge and to establish one exclusion zone of 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi) around the southernmost leak[2] and another of 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi) around the other three[3]

And per Reuters,
They referred to it as an exclusion zone...

A spokesman for the Swedish coast guard confirmed in an email that there was now an exclusion zone of five nautical miles around the leaks.

According to that article, the exclusion zone was to prevent ships from running into a big cloud of bubbles that would cause them to lose buoyancy. That problem goes away as soon as you fix the leak and/or shut off the pipe, whereas with something like radiation contamination, ...looks at calendar...

 

[FireDragon76]

According to that article, the exclusion zone was to prevent ships from running into a big cloud of bubbles that would cause them to lose buoyancy. That problem goes away as soon as you fix the leak and/or shut off the pipe, whereas with something like radiation contamination, ...looks at calendar...

We should be more worried about all the coal particulates that end up in the oceans. There's far more radioactive isotopes from that, like cesium, than there is from Chernobyl or Fukushima.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just info. I ordered propane this morning to fill our 500 gal. tank before winter. It cost $2.09 a gal. and last year at this same time, within 11 days, it was $2.39 a gal. from the same company. That was a pleasant surprise I was expecting it to be higher than last year.

The US has abundant natural gas and isn't dependent on what is happening in Russia. They are playing petropolitics with the Saudi's with gasoline prices, however.

 

[durangodawood]

The Danish Navy and Swedish Coast Guard sent ships to monitor the discharge and to establish one exclusion zone of 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi) around the southernmost leak[2] and another of 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi) around the other three[3]

And per Reuters,
They referred to it as an exclusion zone...

A spokesman for the Swedish coast guard confirmed in an email that there was now an exclusion zone of five nautical miles around the leaks.

That tells us zero about whether its anything at all like the Chernobyl zone. It is not useful information.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That tells us zero about whether its anything at all like the Chernobyl zone. It is not useful information.

Obviously no two events are going to be identical in terms of scope.

But the examples I provided were simply to highlight that there's a more negative connotation to "fallout/exclusion zone" when the word "nuclear" is in front of it.

It's the reason why 99% of people have heard of the 300 sq mi Fukushima exclusion zone, but most people would probably have to Google what the "Zone Rouge" is/was despite it being roughly the same size, because the fallout from that involved arsenic and chlorine and not nuclear material.

Ironically, plants are growing again in Chernobyl (even in the most radioactive spots) after 40 years, as to where there's areas of Zone Rouge with such high arsenic and chlorine levels, that plants still won't grow there and it's been over 100 years.


This next part I had to Google... the EPA sets a upper threshold of 100 PPM for arsenic in the soil (anything beyond that is considered a public health threat), Zone Rouge has areas where the arsenic level in the soil is at 175,900 PPM

 

[durangodawood]

Obviously no two events are going to be identical in terms of scope.

But the examples I provided were simply to highlight that there's a more negative connotation to "fallout/exclusion zone" when the word "nuclear" is in front of it.

It's the reason why 99% of people have heard of the 300 sq mi Fukushima exclusion zone, but most people would probably have to Google what the "Zone Rouge" is/was despite it being roughly the same size, because the fallout from that involved arsenic and chlorine and not nuclear material.

Ironically, plants are growing in Chernobyl (even in the most radioactive spots) after 40 years, as to where there's areas of Zone Rouge with such high arsenic and chlorine levels, that plants still won't grow there and it's been over 100 years.

Ridiculous to compare the Chernobyl zone which will remain uninhabitable for thousands of years to Nord Stream for which you cant even say why there's an exclusion zone that should concern people. Someone else here noted it was very temporary which is probably why most of us haven't heard of it, and those who have dont even care.

Also, its not even right to compare to a chemical war zone where people purposely blew up loads of deadly chemicals.

As noted, I do consider nuclear power way safer than fossil fuels. But if we have use specious argumentative tactics to make the point, maybe people are right be extra skeptical of what we think.

 

[Whyayeman]

Correct, and Nuclear is currently the best lifeboat.

What a lot has to be said about nuclear energy on a thread about oil-well drilling licences!

Here are the most up-to-date figures on relative production of electricity in the UK:

Here is the National Grid ESO’s breakdown of the 2022 electricity generation mix by technology for the UK:

• Gas: 38.5%
• Wind: 26.8%
• Nuclear: 15.5%
• Biomass: 5.2%
• Coal: 1.5%
• Solar: 4.4%
• Imports (mixed source): 5.5%
• Hydro: 1.8%
• Energy storage: 0.9%

Renewables accounted for 49.9% of electricity generation.

Then there is Germany: FRANKFURT, July 5 (Reuters) - Renewable energy accounted for 49% of German power consumption in the first half of 2022

Both countries are expanding their renewable generating capacity and expect to exceed these figures significantly in 2023. Both countries' use of renewables for generation is significantly more than either hydrocarbons or nuclear fuels.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What a lot has to be said about nuclear energy on a thread about oil-well drilling licences!

Here are the most up-to-date figures on relative production of electricity in the UK:

Here is the National Grid ESO’s breakdown of the 2022 electricity generation mix by technology for the UK:

• Gas: 38.5%
• Wind: 26.8%
• Nuclear: 15.5%
• Biomass: 5.2%
• Coal: 1.5%
• Solar: 4.4%
• Imports (mixed source): 5.5%
• Hydro: 1.8%
• Energy storage: 0.9%

Renewables accounted for 49.9% of electricity generation.

Then there is Germany: FRANKFURT, July 5 (Reuters) - Renewable energy accounted for 49% of German power consumption in the first half of 2022

Both countries are expanding their renewable generating capacity and expect to exceed these figures significantly in 2023. Both countries' use of renewables for generation is significantly more than either hydrocarbons or nuclear fuels.

The distinction between generation and consumption should be noted.

While 49% of Germany's power consumption may have come from renewables, they're also an exporter of energy as well...and that's the thing that'll need to be kept in mind, if we want the move from coal to have a serious positive impact, there are going to be countries that don't have the geology to implement wind/solar/tidal, and they're going to have to rely on nearby countries as exporters. (and that creates some challenges, and can make the nearby countries a tad "stand-offish" - and understandably so). For instance, if you're a country that was relying heavily on French renewable exports, and all of the French workers decide to strike because their retirement age was raised from 62 to 64 and cause large disruptions in public power generation, that's a factor that has to be considered.

It should also be noted that Germany's main renewable they use (wind - which is used for 25% of their electricity), is starting to hit some logical upper limits.

Germany's wind power expansion stalls on the roads

Germany's wind power expansion is facing an unexpected roadblock: builders need permits to transport the heavy turbines down the country's roads, and they are waiting months to get them.

www.reuters.com

 

[Whyayeman]

The distinction between generation and consumption should be noted.

While 49% of Germany's power consumption may have come from renewables, they're also an exporter of energy as well...and that's the thing that'll need to be kept in mind, if we want the move from coal to have a serious positive impact, there are going to be countries that don't have the geology to implement wind/solar/tidal, and they're going to have to rely on nearby countries as exporters. (and that creates some challenges, and can make the nearby countries a tad "stand-offish" - and understandably so). For instance, if you're a country that was relying heavily on French renewable exports, and all of the French workers decide to strike because their retirement age was raised from 62 to 64 and cause large disruptions in public power generation, that's a factor that has to be considered.

It should also be noted that Germany's main renewable they use (wind - which is used for 25% of their electricity), is starting to hit some logical upper limits.

Germany's wind power expansion stalls on the roads

Germany's wind power expansion is facing an unexpected roadblock: builders need permits to transport the heavy turbines down the country's roads, and they are waiting months to get them.

www.reuters.com

Trade in renewables is a bad thing? I don't thing so. Countries will buy what they cannot produce and sell what they have a surplus of. Nothing to see there. I don't see what the 'logical upper limits' could be. Are they running out of wind? The UK proportion is 26% and it is set to increase significantly so no shortage of breeziness here.

There is no logical upper limit to wind or solar power. The problems are logistical and will be solved. There is a limit to power from non-renewables, as the term indicates. This applies to nuclear power too, though nobody who pushes it ever says so.

 

[durangodawood]

I would like to see the cost of pollution (in all its forms - emissions, disposal, accidents, etc) built into the price of energy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trade in renewables is a bad thing? I don't thing so. Countries will buy what they cannot produce and sell what they have a surplus of. Nothing to see there. I don't see what the 'logical upper limits' could be. Are they running out of wind? The UK proportion is 26% and it is set to increase significantly so no shortage of breeziness here.

There is no logical upper limit to wind or solar power. The problems are logistical and will be solved. There is a limit to power from non-renewables, as the term indicates. This applies to nuclear power too, though nobody who pushes it ever says so.

No, trade in energy isn't a bad thing at all...it just has to be accounted for that if we wish to move everyone off of coal, certain countries are going to have to rely on certain other countries. And with renewables, there's a geographic component to it that's basically going to carve out who the "solar countries" are going to be, who the "tidal countries" are going to be, etc... By it's very nature, it's going to be an "all your eggs in one basket" kind of thing (maybe not 100%, but whatever is one step down from that expression... perhaps "all your eggs in a small number of baskets")

Not every country is a feasible area (or as the DOE calls them "favorable site") for all of the renewables. Some areas may be lucky enough to be able to get a little bit of all 3, but that's certainly not going to be universal.

Per National Geographic:
Places like Ireland aren't going to be a great candidate for solar, but Italy would be

The United States has no tidal plants and only a few sites where tidal energy could be produced at a reasonable price. England, Canada, and Russia have much more potential to use this type of energy.

This scenario highlights the challenge I was referring to. Say we adopted a policy of getting large amounts of tidal energy from our Neighbors to the North. In a perfect world, that could be somewhat feasible. However, if something happens like a workers strike, or they decided to price gouge, we'd be stuck with spinning back up coal plants to fill in the gaps.

And it goes without saying that people would be rightfully concerned about having to rely on Russians.


As far as logical limits, it's not just logistical, there are logical upper limits. (the feasibility aspect I mentioned). Obviously, there's a finite amount of land in places that are idea for each energy source.

Take wind for instance:

Where wind power is harnessed - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Wind electricity generation in the United States with a list of the top 5 wind energy producing states.

www.eia.gov

Operating a wind power plant is more complex than simply erecting wind turbines in a windy area. Wind power plant owners must carefully plan where to position wind turbines and must consider how fast and how often the wind blows at the site.

Good places for wind turbines are where the annual average wind speed is at least 9 miles per hour (mph)—or 4 meters per second (m/s)—for small wind turbines and 13 mph (5.8 m/s) for utility-scale turbines. Favorable sites include the tops of smooth, rounded hills; open plains and water; and mountain gaps that funnel and intensify wind.


Not every area is going to check those boxes.

 

[Whyayeman]

No, trade in energy isn't a bad thing at all...it just has to be accounted for that if we wish to move everyone off of coal, certain countries are going to have to rely on certain other countries. And with renewables, there's a geographic component to it that's basically going to carve out who the "solar countries" are going to be, who the "tidal countries" are going to be, etc... By it's very nature, it's going to be an "all your eggs in one basket" kind of thing (maybe not 100%, but whatever is one step down from that expression... perhaps "all your eggs in a small number of baskets")

Not every country is a feasible area (or as the DOE calls them "favorable site") for all of the renewables. Some areas may be lucky enough to be able to get a little bit of all 3, but that's certainly not going to be universal.

Per National Geographic:
Places like Ireland aren't going to be a great candidate for solar, but Italy would be

The United States has no tidal plants and only a few sites where tidal energy could be produced at a reasonable price. England, Canada, and Russia have much more potential to use this type of energy.

This scenario highlights the challenge I was referring to. Say we adopted a policy of getting large amounts of tidal energy from our Neighbors to the North. In a perfect world, that could be somewhat feasible. However, if something happens like a workers strike, or they decided to price gouge, we'd be stuck with spinning back up coal plants to fill in the gaps.

And it goes without saying that people would be rightfully concerned about having to rely on Russians.


As far as logical limits, it's not just logistical, there are logical upper limits. (the feasibility aspect I mentioned). Obviously, there's a finite amount of land in places that are idea for each energy source.

Take wind for instance:

Where wind power is harnessed - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Wind electricity generation in the United States with a list of the top 5 wind energy producing states.

www.eia.gov

Operating a wind power plant is more complex than simply erecting wind turbines in a windy area. Wind power plant owners must carefully plan where to position wind turbines and must consider how fast and how often the wind blows at the site.

Good places for wind turbines are where the annual average wind speed is at least 9 miles per hour (mph)—or 4 meters per second (m/s)—for small wind turbines and 13 mph (5.8 m/s) for utility-scale turbines. Favorable sites include the tops of smooth, rounded hills; open plains and water; and mountain gaps that funnel and intensify wind.


Not every area is going to check those boxes.

With energy distribution it was ever thus: American and Arabic oil and gas, British and Australian coal, for example. Germany has very strong links with its neighbours, all already significant trading partners. Electricity already passes under the English channel between France and the British National Grid. Having a strong home market in the European Union reduces reliance on Russian fuels.

I think you are making too much of the technical requirements of wind power.