Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Hollow criticism by the right of the Iran nuclear deal

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iran-deal-obama-sees-validation-diplomatic-gamble/

And the FNC version: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-much-worse-than-experts-predicted.html

As Obama said to the conservatives, "What is their alternative?" I'm sure some of them would publicly or privately call for war, or at least stronger sanctions (I'll get to why that won't work in a bit). Maybe others like Trump think that Obama's team are amateur negotiators compared to the Iranians, and only he could outsmart them to a better deal (he did ghost-write "The Art of the Deal" after all!).

The goal is not to turn Iran into a model nation and have them cease all their questionable/negative activities - that's not going to happen for decades (no matter what leverage or violence we apply). The goal and scope were always limited: to stop or ideally reverse Iran's progress towards bomb capability (i.e. right now they could possibly get a working bomb in 3 months if they go all-out; let's make some changes so that time frame gets a lot longer), and enable the int'l community to detect whether they are cheating. To address some criticisms:

• Why take our foot off the gas with sanctions, they are crippling the Iranian economy and keeping them subdued?
• The goal of the int'l sanctions was always to force Iran to the bargaining table, not to stop the bomb or make the country suffer (which is what is happening - as usual the people are hurting more than the regime).
• If the talks fell apart with no deal, faith in the sanctions would dissolve (they did not accomplish their stated goal), and most nations would pull out except the US (because sanctions hurt other nations too besides Iran - especially energy-thirsty China).
• Since the GOP doesn't understand trade and economics, they think unilateral US sanctions are great - but actually they don't do anything but create missed opportunities for us. Iran will get what they need from the hundreds of other nations. Since we have a strong role in the global fin. system - maybe we could cause some havoc there, but again - it's not going to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

• Could Iran use the sanctions relief to invest in better weapons tech and more clandestine development activities?
• Maybe, but they take on a huge risk by doing so, and the chance of success is low. If they can build a new high-tech production facility without inspectors, spies, regulators, and satellites noticing - well that is kind of our fault then.
• It's possible that they will use their increased wealth to boost their unfavorable activities in the region (supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq, propping up Assad, etc.). But frankly those pains are secondary compared to a nuclear Iran and a certain attack by Israel. 

• Did Obama's team just negotiate poorly, and a better deal was possible?
• I'd like to hear how the GOP would have achieved a better outcome:
• Vast majority of centrifuges idled (not sure if destroyed, or idled)
• Vast majority of their fissile material confiscated
• Fairly good access by int'l inspectors
• Hard caps on enrichment far below weapons-grade
• No one died
• Iran's carrot was to greatly set back their bomb production, and the 5+1's carrot was lifting economic sanctions. It was a fair swap, like a prisoner exchange.
• In the GOP dreamworld, I am sure that they would hope to get 99% of what they want, while Iran settles for 1% of what they want. But unless you have hypnotism powers or a gun to their head, how do you get them to just fold and agree to your demands? A deal has to be mutually beneficial, and even if you are worried about benefiting your enemy, you accept a deal where the net gain to you is larger than no deal at all. And as I stated above, no deal was a bad situation.
• What else did critics want, a full regime change, recognition and peace with Israel, and renouncing of terrorism? If they want those things, then they'll have to pay for it (or at least build some relationship/trust first). So far, all they have given Iran is hate.
• They think Obama is weak and America shouldn't concede anything, we should just tell the world what's up and then they obey gratefully. Well the rest of the world isn't in awe of US "authority" like the GOP is, esp. after the War on Terror.  

• The Fox op-ed claims that Iran will exchange its partially enriched uranium for "raw" uranium that they can enrich in the future. There is no evidence that this will happen or the int'l community will accept this. And if you exchange the same mass of partially enriched U with 0% raw U, that will always make you further from a bomb. Fox needs to learn some math.
• Fox brought up more canards. The deal permits Iran to have some research centrifuges which could potentially improve enrichment. But there are so few of them that it can't make up for all the normal centrifuges that they have shuttered. So again, they are reaching for reasons to complain.
• I don't know much about the ballistic missile part of the deal. Maybe Fox is on to something there, but Iran's missiles can already reach Israel, Riyadh, and maybe Berlin. What does it matter if they can reach London too? They can't hit the US in the foreseeable future.
• Critics keep saying that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to get a bomb (a Bibi-ism). I just don't see any facts that support that claim. It's not a perfect deal, but no deal in the history of the world has been. If Iran can do all the sneaky things that critics claim to make a bomb, then they can do that without a deal too (and faster). Again, their argument is as well built as Bush's plan for post-war Iraq.
• And the GOP are some to talk: they haven't brokered a meaningful and legit int'l deal since Nixon went to China. And if Nixon tried something similar today, he would get skewered by the right. 
• But all of this might not matter if Congress has a veto-proof majority to scuttle the deal anyway! 

---

It still seems early for a lot of criticism, NPR interviewee didn't know how they were eliminating currently low enriched uranium as of a couple days ago.  So I imagine new info will keep coming.

The big concern that most have is that this does pave the way to a bomb, it is just a long way.  Over the next decade or so they get increased centrifuge numbers, more low enriched uranium stockpile allowed, etc.  The presumption is at some point between now and then Iran will have money and start to cheat.  And they will cheat for some amount of time before they get caught.  And at that time will the community bring back all the sanctions?  Will Iran have enough cash to not be limited?  So now instead of poor with a bomb they are rich with a bomb and more time and money spent on delivery of the bomb.

Personally I think that isn't right and the real alternative they are arguing is hold the line until they have to be bombed.  

I also think money and access to world markets will bring about a lot of westernization to Iran.  The web, foreign investors, generic trade, all tends to make the regular people richer which leads to a desire for personal freedoms.  Same thing happening in China right now.  Iran is much younger and better educated, on average, compared to China I believe.  

Also, no chance for Congress to block it anyways.  Obama vetoes anything he doesn't like.

---

Yeah I agree that the criticism seems premature - like they're predicting a divorce during the wedding reception. They could be right, but it would be just a lucky guess at this point.

I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.

The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?

Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).

Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).

Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.  

---

Follow-up discussion to Cold War 2.0 post

In reading what you wrote I agree to a certain extent but you lost me in the conclusions that you draw:

(1) NATO is a military organization... but it is a *defense* organization; insofar as one might be talking about military matters or (implicitly?) reserving the right to use force, it is not offensive in the case of NATO.

(2) Expelling the baltic nations that joined NATO would likely only lead to a liability with no recourse (i.e. the need to defend nations that have been, at that point, willfully excluded); isn't the catch-22 with respect to military force (e.g. missile defense that could be withdrawn) that you would you need it when it's no longer there (i.e. not have a motivation to remove it once you've put it in place)?

(3) Withdrawal would remove the semblance of a pretense... but only where the facts of the same are clear; it is openly speculated that, within Russia, what is reported is not consistent with what is reported in America... further, if Russia is acting out of fear then they would just be that much more likely to start WWIII given the opportunity - so how to signal the absence of hostile intent (independent of never attacking Afghanistan & Iraq in the first place) while not rewarding the Russians for flouting international norms under the guise of keeping an unaccountable U.S. in check?

(4) Russia should withdraw from Crimea... though Vladamir Putin has publicly declared, on multiple occasions, that he will not do so (and that economic sanctions can damage the country for the next couple of years without it affecting his opinion).

(5) We cannot "just let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as (uh, where) they may"... Much like the people in those Baltic states that joined NATO post-2000 it is not the fault of the people but rather their leaders (and the fears/uncertainties/dependencies of those leaders) insofar as there is some problem today - statecraft is slow, steady work (kinda like email) but that is all the more reason to not putz up what we already have in the first place (a sentiment I imagine you agree with)...

PS: There are probably a handful of people out there with the game theory experience to see right through the situation to a simple solution; all I know is that compromise requires give and take (as you hinted at) and working together towards a common goal - maybe Obama's efforts at nuclear deterrence (i.e. decommissioning of nuclear weapons) should get some attention before he leaves office.

---

Thx for your reply and hope you're well.

1. I agree with you about NATO's mission, but from the Russian perspective it doesn't matter - they are hostile and potentially offensive if they are observed to keep adding Eastern member states and massing troops near Russia. It is provocative.
2. You can't really win a cold war. Detente and the USSR collapse was exceptionally fortunate for the US and the world, and I'm not sure if we can expect it again. So the alternative is to reduce tension and live with a balance. That means a demilitarized buffer zone between NATO and Russia, to reduce fear on both sides. You presume that Russia intends to invade the Baltics. We don't know that for sure, and they may only be posturing to invade now because they see NATO massing and want to be able to strike first. You see how defense/precaution on both sides can lead to aggression? That is what we need to avoid.
1. I did say that NATO leaving the Baltics is based on a guarantee that they would help if Russia invades. So it is de facto like they are still in NATO (an attack on any member is an attack on all), but without the provocative troops presence that upsets Russia.
3. I think you signal lack of hostile intent and avoid rewarding Russia for bad behavior by: 
1. NATO pulling out of the Baltics, refusing to add any new members that are Russian neighbors, and ceasing military exercises on Russia's flank
2. But also requiring Russia to give back Crimea, stop its arms buildup in the arctic and on the Western border, and cease all military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels - only then will they lift the econ. sanctions
3. And let's remember - the goal is to avoid war, so there has to be some compromise. Sometime that means relaxing principles and "appeasing", as long as you believe it won't enable future worse behavior
4. Putin has to take a hard line with public statements, but I am not sure how critical Crimea is to his defense strategy (they obviously did just fine for decades without it). Again, if NATO pulled back, I think his fixation on Crimea would also naturally wane (esp. with the carrot of lifting sanctions on the table).
5. It's not like I want to abandon Ukraine, but what choice do we have? We can't allow Ukraine to be a proxy cold war and pretext for nuclear war. If either side meddles in Ukraine, it will necessitate a tit-for-tat by the other side, and then you get the escalation spiral. Maybe someone will blink like the CMC, but sadly we can't count on Putin to be as conscientious as Khruschev. And let's remember that the rebels are still at a disadvantage, and have little chance of taking over the country. Maybe the best thing is for Eastern Ukraine to secede if it stops the killing (like in Sudan)? Of course that is not ideal for the gov't in Kiev, but peace has a price.

Cold War 2.0

http://www.hbo.com/vice/episodes/03/36-cold-war-2-0/video/ep-314-debrief.html?autoplay=true

Vice had a special about the Ukraine crisis, and how the US/NATO and Russia are inching closer to the brink (even though we might not realize it in light of the spotty media coverage).

We know that the Russian regime is corrupt and in some cases unlawful. Probably the world would be better off without Putin. But of course they see the US exactly the same, and we have committed war crimes since the fall of the USSR too. Domestic media paint things as good vs. evil in both nations. Maybe with the facts as the impartial judge, Russia has committed more transgressions than the West, but that doesn't really matter when missiles get launched.

So how did we get here?

• After the fall of the USSR, the Russian economy was in shambles, their pride was shaken, and recently freed Warsaw Pact republics were looking towards new partnerships in Europe for prosperity and security
• Russia's aging military was about all it had going for it when Putin took power (embarrassed by the Kursk sub accident, botched hostage rescues, and troubles fighting the Chechens), and his cabinet has been aggressively spending and modernizing since the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Surging energy prices due to the War on Terror and rise of Asia helped Russia's defense budget
• Former Soviet territories Czech, Poland, and Hungary joined NATO in 1999, and with US encouragement, 9 more nations followed suit from 2004-2009 (incl. all the Baltics)
• And with the War on Terror bringing US/Coalition forces to several Central Asian republics and Afghanistan, Russia saw itself militarily encircled
• Traditionally, the US feels that it controls the Americas and Pacific, and Russia's sphere of influence is Central Asia, but now where does Eastern Europe stand?
• Russia's influence was challenged in the Balkan wars, where Serbia was an important ally
• While Bosnia was a UN-approved mission, the Kosovo campaign was mostly driven by NATO, due to the Russian UN veto
• NATO decided to defy Russia and bomb Serbia without UN approval, which was seen as disrespectful aggression and a possible portent of future incursions into previously "hands off" nations in the Russian sphere
• The Orange Revolution in Ukraine failed (mostly driven by their terrible economy), and they legitimately returned a pro-Moscow leader (Yanukovich) to power
• Yanukovich was working to scrap a previous deal to bring Ukraine into the EU, which upset much of pro-European western Ukraine
• He eventually stepped down amidst protests, but Russia saw this as a US-backed coup, the Ukrainian civil war broke out, and Russia illegally annexed Crimea
• Putin also declared that Russia should control lands where Russian is spoken, which includes eastern Ukraine (Donetsk region) and some of the Baltics
• I won't go into the Ukraine war details here because it's complex and I don't know much, but it's clear that both powers do not want Ukraine to fall to the other side
• But as a result, NATO has tripled its troops presence in the Baltics/Arctic, and there are even US troops on the ground in western Ukraine
• Russia has amassed forces on the Ukraine border to levels not seen since WWII (and also moved nukes to their far western territory Kalingrad, which is 300 miles from Berlin)
• The US has been working on installing missile defense batteries in Eastern Europe since the Bush years (currently stalled but Obama has revise the plan to start construction in Poland in 2018)
• Both sides are posturing/provoking the other with large military exercises and unusual presence of air/sea forces in previously neutral areas

Who knows what mistakes or calculated risks could result in a scary escalation? So how to we pull back from the brink?

• The problem with military buildups is that the other side can't be sure if they are defensive or not
• We in the West would probably find it ridiculous that Russians think that NATO wants to attack them, but can you really blame them?
• The US/EU sanctions on Russia due to their Ukraine actions is seen as economic warfare (even though the plunging Ruble is mostly due to oil than our sanctions)
• They saw how the US/UK ignored dissenting opinions, brutally invaded and occupied Iraq, and set up new bases all over the world like imperialists
• If the US wants to be the sole superpower, obviously they need to knock down Russia a notch or two (or cage them like we do with Iran)
• But Russia also wants to seize the opportunity of a militarily distracted/weakened US in order to increase its influence and security position - maybe back to the USSR days where they were feared by all
• NATO can't just sit idly by when Crimea falls and Russia is lying about its troops and weapons pouring into Donetsk, so they feel the need to send forces east to show they mean business and deter further Russian aggression
• Barring a risky nuclear ultimatum, both sides will not back down at present course (and will match actions tit-for-tat), so a different strategy is needed
• There are no "madmen" in this situation, and both sides are acting perfectly rationally - just like the Cuban Missile Crisis. But that is the scary part: when escalation to war is the rational move (not to mention what freak accidents or irrational moves could occur), we have to change the rules of the game before it's too late.
• A stalemate and huge buildup of forces on the border is not a sustainable solution either, because a bunch of anxious troops and one false move could make things quickly unravel. We have to demilitarize Eastern Europe, and hopefully permanently.
• Why did NATO accept the Baltics and other former Warsaw Pact nations into their club? Those armies are tiny - what did NATO have to gain defensively at the risk of provoking Russia? That land is very valuable from an offensive standpoint, which is why Russia took it so seriously.
• They should be free to join the EU for prosperity and non-military cooperation, but NATO is a military org with only one purpose - a hedge against Russian invasion of WESTERN Europe (kind of irrelevant since the UK and France have nukes)
• We can kindly "expel" those nations from NATO (compensate them economically), withdraw all forces (incl. any missile defense plans), and declare those nations an unaligned buffer zone - but sign a treaty with Russia that any incursions from either side will be met with force
• That way we remove pretense that Russia uses to justify its actions against a perceived NATO threat, and if Russia does try to muscle into Eastern Europe again, they must do so fully aware that they're ushering in WWIII
• Russia should reciprocate by withdrawing from Crimea
• We just have to let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as they may; the losing power has to respect the rights of the victorious side in the name of world peace
• I'm not saying any of this is easy, and some people will get screwed, but it gives a better chance to avoid nuclear war than the status quo

Netanyahu's Congressional address on the Iran nuclear deal

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/03/congress-netanyahu-speech

I don't want to get into the weeds about how poorly argued and substantiated his speech was (the guests in the interview above do that, but just to give you a sense, Bibi said that Iran is competing with ISIS for global domination). But I don't fault him for trying. Like in game theory, it's all about the payoffs and priorities of each player. And with the same set of facts, rational and smart people can come to wildly different conclusions. From their point of view, they're totally right based on their goals.

Re: Israel-Iran, obviously the priority of a conservative Zionist regime is the preservation of the Jewish State at all costs, and keeping pressure on their enemies in perpetuity. No other cost consideration comes close (some IDF soldiers killed - better than getting nuked, angering the Arab world - they can live with that, upsetting the US and UN - they don't really need us anymore, and there are still enough diehard pro-Israel folks here to almost guarantee indefinite US support). So they will do anything to prevent a nuclear Iran or anyone making concessions to Iran or other enemies (which includes breaking protocol to address Congress).

US presidents and Israeli PMs disagree on stuff, and it can cost the PM his job if the Israeli public perceives that the PM is endangering the US-Israeli special relationship. That contributed to Bibi's ouster the first time around, as he butted heads with Clinton one too many times. But currently, I think the Israeli public is so fearful of a nuclear Iran that US relations are a distant concern (or they take it for granted, hence the persistence on expanding West Bank settlements). Even liberal press in Israel support Bibi's view (but not necessarily his methods) that the US should not give an inch to Iran.

Even if Iran's leadership is more moderate now, and with the proposed controls it's highly unlikely that they can develop and test weapons covertly, Israel can't even tolerate a 0.1% chance. So they will bomb if they need to, which will trigger a regional war of course - which I bet they think they can win (might be right, but what about the consequences to other parties?). Or they will try to derail the current negotiations, which in their opinion won't curb the nuclear development, but will ease sanctions and enable Iran to get stronger. They're in the mindset that Israel's enemies are insane genocidal religious fanatics who can't be trusted under any circumstance. So there's no point to negotiate - you know, the typical justification between enemies.

The irony is that the hardliners in Tel Aviv and Tehran want the same thing - no detente, no talks, and just cold/hot war (it reminds me of the plot of Star Trek 6). The talks were kicked off by the moderate/reformist regime of Rouhani (secret overtures to the Obama admin.), but he is on a short leash and has rivals. The nuclear program is one of their few trump cards, and it's by far their best card. He banked his political survival on this, so the hawks want his efforts to fail so they can assume power again - and fight the infidels their way. That is not a great outcome for anyone, especially the Iranian people.

Apart from the hawks, I'm not really sure what Iran's priorities and goals are. I know they want to get their economy going, and the people want to be part of the global scene (and they want better relations with the US and West). I guess the gov't still wants to keep tight control and develop a nuclear program for their prestige/leverage. But I don't know what their official stance is on foreign policy. Are they truly imperialistic as Israel claims? I think the problem with diagnosing aggression is that it's often rooted in fear/defense. Very few regimes just want to conquer and kill everyone (ISIS may be an exception, but they're not a state with leaders who are held accountable to anyone). We ostensibly invaded Iraq to make the world safer. It's possible that Iran supports Hizbullah and other Shia militias because they fear the Sunni and Western enemies all around them, not because they want to dominate the region. And even if Iran wants to become the most prominent power in the Mideast, the goal could be regime preservation in the face of potential aggression against them, not necessarily continued global expansion. But to Iran's enemies, of course they want to assume the worst motives. I wonder what the Iranians think the US and Israel want.

For the US, obviously we have an interest in the strength and survival of Israel (and the defeat of Islamist groups), but we also want to broker a 2-state solution and have Arab/Persian-Israeli peace. Or at least the absence of war, which would be disruptive to energy markets and global stability. Yes, some factions in the US want war in the Holy Land to bring about Armageddon, but I am not sure how prevalent and influential they are. We don't want Iran to nuke anyone, but we have a little more faith in their restraint than Israel does (esp. with the right incentives and threats in place). So the payoff we get from taking a chance on negotiation is maybe worth it to avoid isolation and escalation to war (which seems inevitable as long as hardliners are in power in Israel and Iran). So where does that leave us?

(#s are guesses for demo purposes)

ISRAEL

Negotiate -3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) 5

Fight Now 1

IRAN MODERATES (currently in power)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -3

Fight Now -5

US (5+1 nations)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -1

Fight Now -5

I am not sure how officially involved Israel is in the talks, but their goal is probably to change the 5+1's payoffs so that Negotiate becomes the least favored option (hence the references to Hitler and whatnot). Bibi actually said we should "make a better deal" (better for Israel of course), but that means he wants us to be more of a hard-ass. Though we know Iran won't just cave (this is their best card to play as I said, and they expect top dollar); they may walk away if our demands are too extreme. That would sink Rouhani and the reformers, and lead to the hardline war-is-likely outcome that some parties want.

"We can live with a nuclear Iran"

Economist Daniel Kahneman's Nobel-winning cumulative prospect theory (or my crude interpretation of it): humans irrationally tend to overly fear unlikely events and "worst-case" losses, and will take unreasonable measures to avoid them




http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril_2012/features/we_can_live_with_a_nuclear_ira035772.php

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/daily-show-jon-stewart-takes-iran-war-drums-210908399.html



Isn't it funny that we only freak out about Iran's nuclear program during election years (McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran" and now the 3 GOP stooges talking tough)? The difference now is that Obama and others have convinced the UN to issue the toughest round of sanctions ever against Iran, but they are only a few months old. Yes Iran has made progress on its program since 2008 (though still years away from a functional bomb, and a primitive one at that), but their regime is weakened economically and due to heavier internal protests against their legitimacy. We and our proxies have also whacked some Iranian scientists and corrupted their computer systems, setting their program back a while.



During the recent AIPAC conference, Israeli leader Netanyahu was a broken record: "Imagine an Iranian ICBM heading towards a US city." Well Iran doesn't have ICBMs, and won't for several years at least. If they're lucky, their crappy rockets may reach London. "We are you and you are us... To Iran, the US is the 'great Satan' and Israel is the 'little Satan'... This is a regime that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map." If we are you and you are us, then why do you keep building illegal settlements when our leaders tell you not to? Why do you keep taking our money and giving us nothing in return but diplomatic headaches?



Yes, it's true that Iranian bluster has threatened to destroy Israel, and maybe America too. They clearly aren't friendly. But the Soviet Union (the 2nd strongest military empire the world has ever seen, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert) threatened to bury the West too, and did they ever come close? Did they ever even try? The same stereotypes and accusations were levied against them for decades: the Soviets are irrational, bloodthirsty, fanatical, can't be reasoned with, hate what we stand for, and hell-bent on world war. But in the end they chose to holster their nukes EVERY SINGLE TIME, even when war seemed inevitable in Cuba and as their regime collapsed (supposedly when they had nothing to lose). And some would argue that the Soviets have more of a penchant for suicidal behavior than the Iranians, considering Stalin's purges and whatnot. So is Iran somehow worse than the Evil Empire, despite being much smaller, poorer, and weaker? Yes they are a theocracy with too much centralized, abusive power, and have done some "crazy" things in the past. But in general, their regime has a rational track record (i.e. they are not suicidal). Launching a tiny nuke against Israel (with no guarantee of it "wiping them off the map") would be suicide. Finito. Why would a regime whose only petty desire is to retain power (by hook or by crook) suddenly decide to self-destruct? That is, unless they were prodded and provoked by warmongering opponents.



The hawks' rhetoric is illogical, and I doubt that they even believe it 100%. If Iran is truly the crazy monster than the Israelis and GOP portray, then it would be irrational for us to NOT attack them. If it's only a matter of time, and a total certainty, that they nuclearlize their "global terrorism", then why have we sat on our hands all these years? What are we waiting for!?! Shouldn't we take them out like we did to Saddam and Qaddafi? Our leaders should be FIRED for being so negligent, even hardliners Bush and Netanyahu! So I guess the truth of the matter is that Iran is not such a threat. Former CIA veteran Paul Pillar thinks so in his recent article, and so do the current and former heads of Mossad (the Israeli spy agency entrusted with protecting their tiny nation against all threats before they materialize). All nuclear nations use their warheads primarly as deterrent and bargaining leverage, and only the US has launched them against others in malice. But that was to ostensibly END a war (and signal to the Soviets that East Asia was ours), not start one.



Say that all of what I said is wrong, and we have no choice but to pre-emptively strike. Iranian air defenses are strong, so we would either absorb heavy losses, or need to resort to cruise missiles and even tactical nukes. But those weapons may not be effective against facilities buried under a lot of rock. So how do we penetrate - a ground invasion? We've seen how fanatically Iranians defended their homeland against Iraq, and we know America now has a lower tolerance to sacrifice our sons and daughters overseas vs. a non-imminent danger. And all that would definitely trigger Jihad 3.0 and oil to spike to at least $150/barrel (which would in turn cause fragile recovering markets to plunge into another global recession). Our attack would paradoxically lead to the bloodshed and misery that we supposedly want to prevent by striking Iran! So if it is unfeasible to stop Iran from getting nukes by force, what choice do we have but to "talk and talk" as Gingrich mocked? Talking does not automatically mean appeasement and defeat. But all that macho, ideological crap doesn't matter if we have no other choice. If you don't have a good hand to play, why go all-in with your cash? We can either fight a bloody war with no guarantee of success, nuke Iran pre-emptively to global outcry and Muslim rage, or talk (with the caveat of a remote risk that Iran will betray us and nuke Israel later). Which one of those is least painful? Yes the situation stinks and everyone wishes that Iran would just be more peaceful and give up their nukes. But a lot of people around the world wish that the US and Israel would do the same, and we refuse almost every time.

The economic inefficiencies of our energy policies

A friend recommended "Environmental Economics and Policy" by Tietenberg and it's pretty interesting for those who are eco and econ novices. There's a big chapter on energy policy and how various government actions and corporate incentives reduce the "economic efficiency" of energy (or the total net benefits to society). In other words, we're not getting the most out of our energy use, and our poor decisions are making our energy problems worse. Dynamic efficiency takes the future into account, so it is the best allocation of resources that will maximize the net benefits to both present and future peoples. This is important because so often short-term thinking creates problems (Wall Street quarterly reporting, the House's 2-year election cycle, etc.). Many incentives exist to "rob from the future" in order to increase profit or look better today, and if only future peoples could invent a time machine to advocate for their interests now.

Environmental economics helps to inform policy decisions to increase "fairness" and "sustainability". Fair, sustainable decisions should not leave future generations worse off than we, in terms of aggregate natural and man-made capital available. Carbon trading operates on this principle. Although company X is polluting in the present and thereby hurting the future, it can become more sustainable by offsetting its damage with conservation/research outlays that benefit the future. So the general strategy is to find policies that satisfy sustainability criteria, and of those choices implement the ones with the highest dynamic efficiency. Of course the strictest sustainability criterion mandates that we should preserve the natural world exactly as it is for the future, so that our consumption is limited by the replenishment rate of the resource (forest, fishery, etc.). But that is a hard sell these days, and of course impossible for non-renewable resources like minerals and fossil fuels. Peak oil is probably behind us and the discovery/creation of new deposits is greatly outpaced by our consumption rate. If we can't leave our progeny the same abundance of fossil fuels as we enjoy now, at least our energy use should create profits that can become capital set aside to compensate the future. Alaska basically does this and pays its residents yearly dividends from its "permanent fund" (but really all of it should be off limits).

Republicans and some Democrats pre-BP spill were advocating "drill baby drill" to solve our energy problems. But from a fairness standpoint you can see that makes no sense (we're just leaving less oil for the future). And since domestic oil generally has higher costs of production (labor, regulatory compliance, insurance), we're retaining less profit, even if we were nice enough to set it aside for the future. Plus there's not much left to tap. "Easy oil" has already been exploited in the US, so untapped deposits entail a lot of risk and cost. Deep-water drilling blowouts, arctic pipeline leaks, and water pollution from natural gas fracking are not just hypothetical dangers, but we've witnessed them with horror. Even though the environmental costs of production aren't really included in the retail price of energy, exploration in hard-to-access locations is already super expensive. It's only cost-justified when the demand for oil pushes the market price above $70/barrel like it is today.

The booming tar sands industry in northern Canada and elsewhere is a consequence of this. If you're not familiar: building-size earth movers (that consume a lot of fuel as you can imagine) dig up tons and tons of dirt, transport it to giant boilers that heat up the sludge and separate the usable fuel from the sand. And all this takes place at the top of the world, so there are a lot of costs associated with moving equipment and people up there, keeping them warm and sane, and pumping the fuel back to civilization. Beyond the environmental damage and infrastructure concerns, it also costs about 3 gallons of cleaner natural gas to make 1 gallon of dirty oil from tar sands. Even a child could see that something is amiss with that paradigm. But just because the market says this transaction makes sense doesn't mean we should accept it at face value.

Speaking of natural gas, it's not a panacea either. Since methane is gaseous at normal temperatures, high-pressure transportation and storage is challenging. In order to be cost-effective, it has to be super-cooled to -259 F for international tanker transport. Although we've been lucky so far, LNG facilities are an attractive terrorism target, as an LNG fire is much hotter and harder to contain than an oil fire. Also, methane is much more potent than CO2 for greenhouse effect.

But shouldn't we drill more at home to reduce our dependence on imports? Only if it will make us better off, and it usually doesn't. It's just easier to buy foreign oil - that's why we still do it despite the risks. Yes our money goes to people who may not like us very much, but it's hard to quantify how much actual damage that is causing. What about Middle East terrorism? We are implicitly paying a "security premium" for foreign oil. Some of that is our taxes to fund the US Navy that is mostly in charge of keeping the sea lanes safe for tankers and other vessels. Other monies are allocated to maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: a billion barrels of oil stored in caves in the South in case of embargoes or other supply disruptions. And of course there are the oil wars and support to oil dictatorships. The security premium is good in that it lowers consumption and makes domestic supply more attractive, but the bitter truth is the premium is more efficient than trying to be energy independent (that would require a major US economic downsizing). So we have to live with OPEC and volatile imports, but how can we reduce our pain? Conservation always helps, but it won't fix the problem because of the oil we still need to use, much of it will be foreign. In addition, the government can impose tariffs equal to the security premium. The revenues collected could fund alternative energy research and pollution control. But tariffs piss people off (people we depend on), so DC would prefer to subsidize domestic suppliers (but that won't make oil any cheaper to consumers).

Price controls are a touchy issue too. We know that the middle and lower classes are getting squeezed by higher energy prices, and we don't want people to lose their jobs because they can't commute or die because they can't afford to keep the heater/AC on. It isn't humane if some people are priced out of access to energy. Of course OPEC and other local monopolies reduce supply in order to capture more "economic rent" or resource royalties. But when the gov't holds commodity prices below their market price, it causes consumption to increase, which exacerbates climate change, hurts the future more than it helps the present, and makes it harder for alternative energy to gain market share. If price controls are in place long-term, consumption will be so high that all the cheap gas will be used up until the extraction costs of harder sources equal the price cap. Then producers have no incentive to sell gas. And even though prices are forced lower, during shortages there's no guarantee that poorer people will get access to fuel. Subsidies make a lot more economic sense. Let prices rise to the market rate, but compensate the poor so that they can afford it.

Price controls also create perverse incentives for suppliers. Politicians may cap prices to look good in an election year, but if producers know the cap will expire next year, they may cut back supply to make more money in the future. So we'd have over-consumption plus supply shortage. This happened with natural gas in the US in the 1970s. For some reason, the gov't put price caps on interstate gas purchases but not intrastate. So suppliers preferred to sell locally, which totally screwed people in gas-poor states.

And then there's the whole issue of energy deregulation. Traditionally, utilities were regulated monopolies where gov't would set price, but suppliers were obligated to service all customers in an exclusive area. But in 1992, Congress decided to let suppliers sell electricity on open markets, and lower prices to compete for customers. Well, that was the plan at least. If price leadership is key, firms have incentive to cut safety corners and use the dirtiest inputs to provide the cheapest watts. Dysfunctional California joined the party in 1995 since the state was paying power rates about 50% higher than US average. But a perfect storm ensued to cripple the state. Drought reduced hydroelectric productivity and many fossil fuel plants were due for scheduled maintenance shutdowns. This boosted wholesale costs, but suppliers couldn't pass them onto consumers due to a price cap that was law. So rolling blackouts ensued, and some firms like Enron affiliates (famously) exploited the chaos. They deliberately withheld power in various markets to take advantage of short-term supply inelasticity, which raised prices and allowed them to reap monopoly profits. So the poorly and hastily designed "free market" turned monopolistic anyway. PGE even had to declare bankruptcy in 2001, the voters blamed Gov. Davis, and replaced him with the Terminator.

Even China knows that coal is literally a dead-end, but how about nuclear? If the energy market functioned properly, nuclear power would never exist. Besides the yearly tax breaks, gov'ts had to offer huge assistance to promote plant construction, because if suppliers had to absorb the real costs of nuclear accident risk and waste disposal, there would be no takers. We passed the Price-Anderson Act in 1957 to cap liability damages at $560M for a nuclear disaster (and the taxpayer would cover 90% of that, though not sure if those are 1957 or 2011 dollars). It was supposed to expire in a decade (by that time nuclear plants were supposed to figure out safety so that accident risk was a nonfactor), but it hasn't. The gov't share has fortunately shrunk, and now private insurance covers the difference.

Like other insurance, plants pay premiums into a big accident fund, but in this case the sick pay as much as the healthy. Plants with great safety records and top-of-the-line equipment don't get rate discounts, so there's no incentive to provide sufficient safety. But no one wants another Chernobyl, right? Well economically speaking, it makes no difference for nuclear firms. Due to gov't and insurance risk underwriting, they are no worse off if they wet the bed. And I'm not sure how much responsibility companies bear for waste disposal (my guess is not much, otherwise they wouldn't be in business). How scary is that? Sure I believe they still have a conscience and don't want to take the PR hit from an accident, but it concerns me that negligence can't really be punished financially. As we've already discussed, the NRC that oversees nuclear facilities is underfunded and bullied by Congress to back off the plant operators. A fair alternative would be to tax the nuclear firms to compensate those affected by nuclear power issues. France already forces plants to sell cheaper power to those living nearby, and the same should be done for those living near waste disposal sites, in order to make up for lost property values and potential risks. Then future residents can decide whether those incentives make it worthwhile to live there. But after Fukushima, I think nuclear won't be experiencing growth for at least a generation.

To close, energy use is a double-edged sword. Low or high prices are both good and bad for the environment. Low market prices increase consumption (and pollution), but will cause us to deplete our resources faster and transition to sustainable renewable energy. But this will exacerbate scarcity conflicts, force us into riskier exploration before the tech is ready, and probably make the energy transition more traumatic. High market prices will reduce consumption and conserve more resources for future peoples (who can hopefully extract the remaining energy more safely and efficiently), but most of the profits will go to OPEC and other suppliers. High prices will also make alternative fuels more attractive and stimulate research. And of course if energy prices truly reflected social and environmental costs of use ($100-200B/year in the US according to the author), they would be much more expensive ($10/gallon for gas). I am not sure which scenario I am rooting for, but higher prices seem probable. Any way it goes, fossil fuels will dwindle until the remaining supplies are as expensive to extract as renewable alternatives (hopefully by then hydrogen and clean electricity will be viable for vehicles). But if we plan intelligently, we'll be ready that day for a smooth transition instead of furiously struggling to cope.

Crazy stuff that went down at Area 51

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/17/136356848/area-51-uncensored-was-it-ufos-or-the-ussr

An LA Times journalist recently published a history of Area 51, the US government's secret nuclear and air force facility in Nevada. She starts her Fresh Air interview describing all the bone-headed nuclear experiments we did after the end of WWII. As we already know, our gov't detonated hundreds of nuclear weapons above ground (and so did other nations), spreading radiation all over (and in some cases deliberately exposing soldiers to the danger to observe the effects), until leaders finally woke up and agreed to various versions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (that W Bush in all his wisdom pulled the US out of, but Obama is trying to restore despite GOP Congressional resistance). Pretty much all US nuclear testing was executed or planned by personnel at Area 51.

Just to "see what happens", the US gov't detonated nukes in the upper atmosphere above the South Pacific to see how the ozone layer would respond. There was also another defensive objective to see if a nuclear explosion up there (and ensuing EMP) would disrupt the guidance systems of incoming Soviet ICBMs (it didn't). The NYT got wind of this and threatened to expose the gov't, but the Truman administration somehow convinced them to keep quite for "national security" until the 1980s. But still it's unclear whether the test actually damaged the ozone layer and put people at risk. Scientists on the project were aware of this risk at the time, but reassured the team that the atmospheric turbulence following the detonation would "fill" any hole created by the blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear_explosion#List_of_high-altitude_nuclear_explosions

Even worse for human health, the US gov't had almost around-the-clock nuclear-armed bombers in the air over the North Atlantic as quick responders in the event of a Soviet attack. But as we know, planes crash sometimes. On at least 2 occasions, nuclear bombers crashed in Europe and dropped their payloads. In one accident over Spain, there was a midair refueling gaffe and the plane ejected its warheads while crashing, but their parachutes failed and the bombs spread plutonium all over. A US hazmat team was sent in to clean it up, but they weren't told what they were cleaning, so they had zero radiation protection. I'm sure they're all dead by now. In Greenland, a B-52 crashed on the ice after another refueling goof, and the ensuring fire melted a hole. The plane debris and its 4 nuclear warheads sunk into the ocean, and it's still unclear whether they have all been recovered. That accident was where the term "broken arrow" was coined. How this relates to Area 51 is that the gov't decided to test what would happen if such a plane crash took place on the US mainland. They deliberately exploded a plutonium dirty bomb in the desert to simulate a crash, and tried to figure out ways to clean it up. It was a total disaster, and the site was still being worked on into the 1980s (making Fukushima look like spilled milk). Plutonium's half-life is many thousands of years by the way, and it's pretty much the most toxic inhaled substance known to man. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

And now for the creme-de-la-creme, the UFO question. We know of stories of a UFO crashing in Roswell, NM in the 1950s, and the gov't trying to cover it up by moving all the evidence to deep inside Area 51. The author interviewed an anonymous source, a veteran of the US Atomic Energy Agency/Manhattan Project who was an insider at Area 51. When "War of the Worlds" aired on the radio in the 1930s, the US went into a panic with many believing it was a real alien invasion. Hitler and Stalin (and Washington) took note of this, and found it to be a legit security concern. Creating the illusion of an alien invasion could cause enough chaos and distraction among US armed forces and the public to make a foreign attack easier. The USSR and Western powers snatched up many of the mad Nazi scientists at the end of WWII. It's possible that Stalin took over some of the work of the Horten brothers who created a "flying wing" craft for Germany. While not a flying saucer, it was some sort of triangular craft that definitely didn't resemble a typical airplane. Some thought the Hortens achieved the ability for the craft to hover. And then there was Auschwitz's Dr. Mengele, who conducted all sorts of unethical human experimentation. Supposedly Stalin cut a deal with him as well, to create genetically or surgically altered people who resembled the child-like, big-headed alien creatures of sci-fi. So the "UFO crash" at Roswell could have been a test run of this Soviet project in order to create American panic over an imaginary alien invasion. Apparently the craft pilots (who looked like aliens) were captured alive, and then interrogated by the US about all this.

Yeah, right, you're probably thinking. Why wouldn't Truman just expose all this to the media to show how depraved and desperate the USSR was? Maybe he was partly worried that the Soviet goal would be achieved, that no one would believe this hoax was actually man-made, and fear an alien attack. Or as the author's source said, we kept it quiet because we wanted to replicate the Soviet project (either to shove it back in Moscow's face, or at least learn the science of how they did it). So supposedly the US tried to alter people to look like aliens as well, which was the last obscene straw to make the author's secret source want to spill the beans. And the US gov't has kept all this and Area 51 quiet so as to not expose the evidence of our horrible experimentation and other crimes to the public.

Well, considering all the wacky research during the Cold War, and all the disturbingly creative strategies the 2 superpowers devised to destroy each other, I guess this isn't so far fetched. But you would think that the author would try to corroborate her source's story. Why hasn't anyone in Russia come forward? Thousands of Americans must have worked on these horrific projects as well. And if the Soviets created a flying saucer, why wouldn't they use that technology in more traditional ways to gain an advantage over us? I suppose it's possible that they just had a stealthy spy plane transport the saucer high over US airspace, and then drop it off with a parachute. But if the Soviets' goal was to trigger an alien panic, why not drop dozens of saucers and "aliens" over populated US metro areas, so the US gov't could never squelch it? Lastly, it's not a new thing that the US has engaged in criminal human experimentation (LSD, Tuskegee, etc.). What's the big deal about keeping this one so secret? I guess we may never know, but it sure is an interesting take on an old story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_brothers
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm

After Fukushima, how safe are US nuclear reactors?

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201103181

The transcript of this show is not yet available, but some nuclear experts were discussing the Japan situation and our own nuclear security. We've already seen the consequences of de-regulation or lack of gov't enforcement (due to industry pressure and greed) during the financial crisis, coal mine disasters, and BP spill. Apparently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is supposed to be the SEC for the nuclear industry. They have fairly sound rules by most counts (and are hardly suffocating considering the risk analysis), but they're not getting enforced. Nuclear companies (that already enjoy huge taxpayer subsidies) piss and moan that if they fully comply and fix all their violations, they won't be able to stay in business. But the underfunded and understaffed (big surprise) NRC said rules are rules. So instead of improving safety, the companies complained to their (mostly GOP) buddies in Congress to get the NRC off their backs. Congress then told the NRC to basically cease and desist, or see their already strained budget cut by 40%. Then the NRC "folded like a tent" and relented on the violations. This is how your gov't works.

Why do we even have watchdog agencies when Congress (under corporate pressure) will simply defund them when they try to do their jobs? Maybe we need a watchdog for Congress that will over-rule them when they get out of line. As usual, there's the revolving door problem of ex-NRC workers getting cushy industry jobs and using their contacts at the agency to promote the interest of their companies (maybe at the cost of public safety).

Apparently this has been going on since 2002: http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/pre2003/rules_cracks.htm

I am ignorant about nuclear power, but the plants are meant to generate electricity, right? If the outside grid goes down, it shouldn't matter. A dairy farmer doesn't care if Safeway runs out of milk. Shouldn't it be self-powered operation? I understand if a big disruption like an 8.9 quake could cause a temporary power failure (and then the tsunami took out the backup diesel generators), but wouldn't batteries keep the cooling water pumps going until they could get the plant online? Why would they need to lay new transmission lines from the outside grid? Was the plant's generating capacity just destroyed? Well, maybe this is a good example why we shouldn't build critical infrastructure in disaster-prone areas. I know Japan is kind of geographically screwed in that regard, so maybe they should have adopted more hydro, wind, or other safer forms of energy. Apparently the nuclear industry in Japan has similar political clout and enjoys generous gov't assistance: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103160900. The design of the Fukushima plants are of the GE Mark 1 type (circa 1970's), and apparently 3 prominent design engineers resigned over concerns about project safety.

Oh yeah, and for the record - iodine tablets and salt won't do crap to protect you from this kind of radioactive fallout. But I guess they don't hurt if you don't mind waiting in line and putting others at risk (whose health conditions may depend on those minerals not being sold out).

-------

We should all be calling Jerry Brown right now and demanding he close both Diablo and San Onofre.  You might be safe, but I will guarantee you that all those people within 20 miles of the
Fukushima  plant will most likely have acute radiation sickness. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/idUS158664922020110318

How much radiation do you think Japan's been exposed to?  I would start with, 'they were exposed to more than what they got on that flight because the plane was hotter than usual.   I'm not sure if we'll be any more affected by the radiation than we've been affected by all those nuclear tests done in nevada, but i'm pretty sure alot of japan is getting dosed beyond a 'safe' level.

And, keep in mind, the iodine is not for atmospheric exposure, but after the land, water and food supply is contaminated, you can protect your thyroid from heavy iodine by outcompeting it for thyroid receptors.  I'm not sure if people get that little detail....

-------

I know there is a lot of scary radiation going around but I am yet to see an article that says this is anywhere near acute radiation sickness.  The engineerings INSIDE the plant that had the blown containment area are not expected to get acute radiation sickness levels.  Cancer in 10 years, probably.  But those guys are inside the reactor.

Radiation is scary, has long term effects, can spread into groundwater, etc, but i haven't actually seen anything but speculation and fear of that, anyone have an article to reference?

------

maybe that's because the acute rad sickness is being buried. i remember reading a couple of days ago that there were workers showing up with acute rad. sickness. here's even a more recent report.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/heroes_of_nuclear_crisis_elite.html

Milton noted reports that some workers have already shown signs of acute radiation sickness. That would be even worse than it sounds because “the sooner it comes on after exposure, the worse it is.” 

-------

I agree, the workers at the power plant, near reactors are just
getting tons and tons of exposure externally and I am sure some
particles are getting through their masks.  One of the NPR reporters
in Japan was reporting her radiation readings last night.  I believe
her hands were 500 cpm, clothes 1000, and shoes 10,000.  Now the
Japanese officials told her to go home and wash her hands, shoes, and
clothes (which is exactly what EH&S tells us not to do because it will
get into our ground water etc but I guess they have bigger more
immediate worries). Granted scientists all over the world work with
100,000 cpm quantities every now and then and it is still safe. But
the scientists work with these elements minutes and hours at a time,
and not every day.  These people who are near the plant, just outside
the 20 mile radius are constantly being exposed to 10,000cpm of
radiation 24/7 and that may climb to 20 or 30k if the radioactive
particles continue to leak. As Lisa noted Japan may face a peak of
cancer and other chronic illness in 5, 10 yrs.

Interestingly, NPR reported that Chinese have temporarily put a stop
on approvals of their current nuclear power plant projects in light of
this incident.  Apparently the president of the company that built
many of their 25 nuclear plants has already been sentenced to life in
prison for bribery and other charges.  one can only hope that he did
not cut too many corners before he was incarcerated.

-----

I didn't see anything in that link that says anything about acute radiation sickness.  I didn't see a Milton story either so maybe i missed that.  I do recall reading (sorry no source) that the same company that is currently downplaying the radiation impact has previously been fined/convicted (not sure which) for a cover up previously.  So that speaks to the potential for burying the story.

However, at this point i think there is more sensationalism than evidence.  My wife (UCLA hospital employee) has been inundated with calls/questions about potassium iodide because of the "deadly radioactive cloud descending on the west coast".  

--------

As we've seen in our own country, I think the Japanese gov't probably isn't fully leveling with the public about health risks, either to save face or avoid panic. I just hope the families of those plant workers will be properly compensated for their sacrifice. At least Japan has quality universal health care.

Yeah as M said about the K-I tablets, typical American hysteria over a minute threat (reminds me of duct tape after 9/11). Like L said, iodine only protects against thyroid cancer (and mostly for young people with an active thyroid), so all the other dozens of cancers are fair game. Maybe the makers of Enzyte and Airborne should quickly market "Radiation D-fenZ" placebo pills, and they would sell out in a minute. Then they could flee with their loot to Venezuela before the lawsuits are processed. As Michael Scheuer said (that ex-CIA guy who worked on hunting Bin Laden), "I remember a time when Americans weren't scared of everything." Plus it's completely insensitive; for whatever level of radiation we are getting in CA, it's orders worse for the millions of Japanese closer to the plant, so have a little perspective. Plus no one seems to mind the radiation dose they are getting flying to Cancun for spring break, or getting an un-necessary CT scan to check for whatever illness. Even bananas are slightly radioactive because of their potassium content. 

-------

what about the full CT scan you're obliged to get when you fly to cancun? 

the last paragraph of that article contains the sentence i'd included in the previous email.  maybe you didn't read that far.

and, i'm really tired of the belittling of the dangers of radiation.  the govt. does lie to you about the dangers.  if you think the shit is so safe and a necessary evil, then why do the people who profit from it not live in the shadow of the towers? as far as i'm concerned, the owners, the profiteers and the major GE stockholders should all be obliged to live in the shadow of the towers.

------

like I was saying about being exposed to 10-30k cpm, low or high does,
if the source of the leak doesn't get secured, it will eventually get
into everything, especially the people near are washing their
contaminated bodies and clothes at home, letting it trickle into their
ecosystem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

however, I am not too worried about the same sort of radiation
reaching CA considering the low dose it is reaching our shores.
I think it was my high school physics teacher who taught us that if
you sneeze, it would have circled the world in 4 years.  The
radioactive particles will continue to travel, well pass CA and the
western coast. In a week, it would reach back to Japan considering it
only took 5 days to get to CA in the first place. If there is no way
to escape the traveling radioactive particles, and magnitude of
radiation decreasing with distance, I think half way around the world
from Japan is the safest place to be.

-----

Maybe i'm misunderstanding L's point with her emails.  I read her original link, "milton noted reports" is in there, but not the reports he notes.  Where is the news site that shows reports of acute radiation sickness?  I'm not saying it didn't happen/doesn't exist but i haven't read it.  For something incredibly dire and widespread that seems odd.  Admittedly i'm not scouring the web to find it but if it is as serious as it could be that shouldn't be a problem.

Lisa's later email seems to constantly highlight that the radiation plume reaching the west coast is incredibly dilute and not expected to cause any health problems, giant sarcasm article maybe?  If i have to be drinking the kool-aid as a necessary prerequisite to know what is really happening then you are going to have to try harder.  Distrust of the gov't may make me hesitant to believe these types of articles but it doesn't make the opposite the truth.  

I won't be surprised when in 6 weeks/months/years the truth of the matter comes out and we find it was worse than what was originally stated or that some corporate/gov't entity lied to us.  However I don't think we'll find credence in the news commercial i saw that stated "deadly radiation cloud approaching CA, will your family be safe?  At 11..."  

People's fear of radiation is deep seated in misunderstanding.  It is complex in ways that a lot of other types of contaminants and poisons are not.  There are radioactive things you can hold in your pocket everyday of your life with no ill effects and if swallowed will kill you.  There are things that you can put 6 feet of lead between you and it and you'll have no protection whatsoever.  I think the media is playing on this more than giving us real information which was my original point in my first email. 

------

Yeah I guess radiation is both over-hyped and under-hyped depending on the context. People fear what they can't see or don't understand (I'm not accusing anyone here of this, just the population in general). The concentration of radioactivity drops precipitously with distance from the source, so the amount that gets to us in CA is relatively small. But the bottom line is everything in the world can freaking kill us at a sufficient dose (including water). As the physicists on the NPR Science Friday show explained, any sort of radiation is dangerous, even solar radiation. But the extent of danger is tiny in most cases. Energy from radiation may disrupt our DNA and lead to mutations, but most mutated cells are disposed of by the body and don't lead to disease.

Of course toxicology studies are very hard to perform with radiation (especially the kinds associated with fission) because controlled testing is so difficult/unethical, so there's a lot we don't know, or that the gov't won't tell us. So in the presence of such uncertainty, the only way to truly feel safe is to refrain from using any fission for human purposes. But people made risk-reward calculations, and for the decision makers it's worth it to go nuclear (companies get the rewards, people near plants and gov't agencies get the risks).

We make risk-reward calculations every day, and have a higher chance of harm from driving to work (accidents, emissions particulates). As long as we're evaluating each risk fairly and objectively, then I think we will make good decisions in the interests of society overall. But if special interests control the decision making and information, and leave us and other concerned parties out of it, then we will come to sub-optimal outcomes. But yeah, that should tell people something when the pro-energy politicians and big executives of energy companies won't live or work near their plants, refineries, wells, or mines. 

------

I agree completely.  And at the end of the day it is clear that those that make the risk reward decisions only get rewards.  I watched a short film that was attempting to take that exact thing (socialized risk i think they called it) and make it personal risk.  No perfect alternative exists but until those that get the reward in equal quantities as the risk, the decision making will always be skewed.  And the system we have right now very easily diffuses the risk amongst the world and concentrates the reward amongst the few.

I don't think the energy CEO won't live near power plants, i think he has enough money to prevent power plants from being built where he lives.  Try to put a reactor next to Vale and watch the NIMBY explode.

----------

Heh yeah, wouldn't that be a PR nightmare for the industry if you have nuclear execs and their families protesting plans for a new plant construction near Martha's Vineyard? Why is it only the poor and minorities get screwed by eminent domain?

In the aftermath of Tyco/Enron/Worldcom fraud, I believe one part of Sarbanes-Oxley is a provision that a firm's CEO & CFO must personally sign off on financial statements, and be held legally responsible for any criminal wrongdoing. So in theory, their asses are on the line and they have a personal incentive to make sure their company keeps honest book. I guess that's why the director of the Oscar-winning doc "Inside Job" about the recent financial crisis was so appalled that no Wall Street exec has been prosecuted for fraud so far (excluding Madoff). I guess it's just hard to prove willful malfeasance or deception regarding all those exotic investment vehicles.

For the energy industry (or any industry that can potentially hurt many people and the environment), I wish they would have the same thing, in order to match risk to reward as you said. Yes you have approval to build project A here, but if anything goes wrong we will  lock up upper management and seize their assets. Then I'd think we'd see fewer, better, and safer projects. In order to compensate for the negative externalities of dirty energy, profits should get taxed for a disaster fund that will cover the losses in case of a BP spill type event (and the general health effects for nearby poor people living under their daily pollution). It's the cost of doing business. Surely firms would pass some of that to customers, so maybe that would make us think twice about our use of dirty energy. Even better, some of the tax would go to the budgets of regulatory agencies in order to improve oversight and decrease the burden on taxpayers. And if the firm is good and operates safely, they'll have some of that money reimbursed over time, like good driver insurance discounts. A corporation is a "legal person", so it should be punished for bad behavior just like we would. But unfortunately firms are more like Lindsay Lohan, getting a slap on the wrist for DUIs and parole violations, because they pay top dollar for political favors and legal counsel.

For the Japan nuclear crisis, I'm not saying the firm that runs the plant (Tokyo Electric) is guilty of legal wrongdoing, but I believe that the accidents we have seen are preventable, even after a historic quake-tsunami. The guest on the KQED Forum program I mentioned in my first email said that Tokyo Electric was known to suppress or doctor bad safety inspection data, has spent a lot on pro-nuclear mass marketing, and of course enjoys generous gov't subsidies. 

--------

Has anyone heard from the chinese execs who were responsible for the melamine the the baby food debacle?

no, because they were taken out and shot for profiting at the expense of the public.  i do not support killing or the death penalty, but in the case of massive profit at the public's expense, especially the massive health crisis that will occur in Japan due to this fallout (and whether you hear about it or not, it is a massive health crisis), I might make an exception.  Okay, maybe not with this situation, but if we look at lessons learned from this situation, we can use this as precedent as to why nuclear power should be never considered a viable resource of energy, again.  And, going forward, anyone who does the 'risk benefit' analysis and decides to go with the benefit of taking that risk,  must personally pay for the consequences.

I don't believe the threat of jail will prevent these sociopaths from putting profit before even their own children's lives.  but, if we remove them from the gene pool, we might be able to evolve beyond this anti-social notion.

--------

Eugenics for the win!  Jokes aside L has a point that the people who relentlessly pursue profit like this are either actually or close to being sociopaths.  What other type of person is willing to throw thousands of people in harms way for an EXTRA million per year.

I don't know how i feel about never nuclear but Japan will always be a high risk proposition for nuclear plants being on a major fault line and the associated tsunami risk (seems obvious now...).  But Japan i think i read was 30% nuclear, what alternatives do they, or anyone, have?  If you don't have geothermal and you don't have large tracts of land to provide wind/solar, what are the options?  I think Japan does pretty well as a nation with reducing energy consumption.  Public transit is the norm in major cities, small homes, not a wasteful culture, ~ half the per capita consumption of the US.  So assuming they can't experience a 30% reduction in energy use, how does a country like japan manage to meet its energy needs sans nuclear?

------

well, who's going to power their radiation treatment equipment when they have that big bolus of cancer victims?

I'm sorry, Mark, but this is a subject too close to home.  I have been protesting(my first protest was in Harrisburg, PA) for what seems my entire life, against nuclear power.  I lived 12 miles away from TMI in 1979.  I'm not sure of the outcome at this point.  I do know they lie about the safety and what had happened.  And, I do know my best and oldest friend is dying from breast cancer.

I also do know what it looks like to see someone die from cancer induced from ionizing radiation exposure.  Although 40 years after the exposure, my father suffered for 6 long years, slowly being chipped away by 5 serial, primary tumors. He sat over Almagordo test site.  He didn't witness a blast.  All those soldiers are dead.  He was there 6 years after the test.  He was stationed there for one year.  No rad badges and every assurance he was in no danger.  Of the 5 guys he was stationed with, 4 have had these serial, primary tumors.  I worked in environmental cancer research at UCSF.  I know this is the common pattern for ionizing radiation exposure. 

My guess is I most likely have that same fate coming my way.  I don't want my son (nor anyone's son) to carry on that legacy.  It is not a risk a compassionate society should take.

--------

And i'm not trying to be insensitive but what is the alternative?  Taking nuclear off the table is not a solution without some sort of viable replacement.  And if you made the country vote (obviously i'm guessing here) to either have nuclear power or turn off all their power 30% of the time I think they would choose nuclear.  I'm not anywhere near an energy expert but from what i understand for Japan solar/wind/tide sources won't cover it or at least won't cover it without great expense (time, money, infrastructure, etc).  I'll bet that even given the tsunami and the reactors that will be closed nuclear will stay a strong minority of Japanese energy sources.

--------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

Although I was in disagreement about nuclear radiation exposure from Three Mile Island I was not aware that (even now) radiation levels at Trinity are 10x the normal level of background exposure; I would guess that levels were even higher a number of years ago and probably do not make root cause identification for radiation-related illness (e.g. thyroid cancer) any easier.

--------

Yeah I agree with you two, and thanks everyone for their input on this tough issue. I guess it's just so darn hard to prosecute white collar crime because the offenders are very clever, they have an army of top lawyers and politicians, and it's hard to prove anything without a secret camera or leaked documents (like "The Informant!"). So even if we had the death penalty for those types of crimes (that are much more socially damaging than a gang-banger selling a few rocks), it will be hard to convict, and they will appeal and counter-sue for years and all that. Sometimes with China you have to admire the efficiency of their barbaric justice system.

A past failure analysis of a Louisiana nuclear plant indicated that the cause of a future meltdown was 87% likely to be due to external power loss and cooling system failure (like Fukushima). So knowing that (and they should have), if Japan and other nuclear nations do a better job of creating many redundant power backups, and somehow test them for all sorts of extreme shocks to the system, then maybe nuclear would be safer. But really no family should have to go through the suffering of L's father and other victims of careless nuclear just so we can keep our lights and TVs on.

You know how Russia offered to process Iran's nuclear fuel offshore? Maybe nearby Korea/Russia/China could offer land for Japan to build nuke plants on the mainland (hopefully in earthquake-free, unpopulated areas). Japan would give some of the power to the host nation, and then run long underwater transmission lines to Japan for electricity?

Or Japan could just rely more on fossil fuels, but sign long-term futures contracts for reasonable prices, then invest more in carbon capture? I mean, this is the country that makes the best toilets (Toto), the best passenger cars, the best mass transit, and the best robots in the world. They are also one of the most green-minded rich nations, where the power of corporations and the profit motive is not as strong as the US/UK. Japan has some renewable energy (6% of total in 2005), mostly solar and hydro. But their investments in renewables have been paltry compared to the US and China. So if they get more with the program, I think they can find nuclear alternatives. Plus, the easiest way to generate more energy is to use less of it. Japan is already much more energy efficient than the US, but with the right programs they could easily cut usage by another 10%, and that will allow them to decommission some of their most at-risk nuclear plants. Maybe through gov't and industry PR, the Japanese public have come to overly trust nuclear, but I guess public opinion is changing.

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_environment/renewable/ref1002.html 
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/renewable-energy-resources/world/asia/solar-asia/solar-japan.shtml
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/pew-546-billion-in-renewable-energy-investments-at-risk/3944/

--------

It's funny you mention fighting with China. Japan's expansionist ambitions in the 20th Century were of course dependent on fossil fuels to power their industry and military. They already had a puppet gov't in Manchuria providing coal for their factories, but when Japan invaded French Indochina in 1940, the US cut oil exports as punishment. The US was Japan's primary oil supplier at the time (and Japan has next-to-zero domestic oil), so of course that was unacceptable to them. So then they bombed Pearl and invaded Singapore and the Dutch East Indies to get at their oil.

When faced with future energy shocks and threats to their economic vitality, I don't know what Japan will do in response. I doubt they will turn aggressive, but maybe they will just keep going with nuclear, hope for no mega-quakes, and say to hell with any protests. Or maybe they will take a more dignified, humble approach, and accept that their economy will have to contract in response to these energy and social welfare constraints. Unlike American exceptionalism, where we can't bear the thought of relinquishing our unsustainable lone superpower status, even if the writing is already on the wall.

More on nuclear power

Since my dad is a nuclear engineer and I've maintained an interest in nuclear power over the years I'll do my best to share what I know (i.e. my own $.02)...

Apart from the obvious and still legitimate concerns for plant accidents...

Uranium mining (on the whole) is not that expensive and not that dirty (especially when compared to some of the other things which we pull out of the ground).

Obviously the up-front costs of plant construction are huge...

Comparing the incentives is a bit like comparing apples and oranges; nuclear is a mature industry and (as such) doesn't require the type of incentives which renewables do in order to offer a compelling case as a power source on a cost per kilowatt hour basis.

With current technology, nuclear plant...

Take a look at what the German government just did with their plants; there's no technical obstacle to keeping many of the plants in service and (as such) clean, cheap (i.e. <$.05 kW/hr.) electricity from nuclear sources is as much a matter of political will as it is anything else.

The US hasn't built a new nuclear plant since 1978...

Fuel storage is something my dad's company has been working on for more than ten years.  Although you are correct in stating that NIMBY is a problem (it always has been) dry storage does offer a means for utilities to bridge the gap between fuel pools which are full and have outlived their originally intended duration and more centralized (i.e. Yucca Mountain) storage.  Approval for new plants is also a matter of will and (given the state of the economy and energy security challenges commodity price changes pose) you may see the pendulum of will swing back to where it came from (i.e. accepting nuclear power as something less than ideal but nevertheless necessary).

All things considered, the DOE estimates that ...

I disagree with your numbers (Diablo Canyon has been producing energy since the mid-80's at <$.05kW/hr.) and your assessment of "net energy" (you've probably misinterpreted the numbers as it would seem highly unlikely that a single nuclear power plant would be built if 100KW would need to be spent to create 30KW).

Then there's the old hope that technology will save us...

The advancements are significant but can't be referenced easily (or casually, as it were) since most of the advancements haven't been implemented in practice...  The fact remains that (in France) fuel is simply re-run through the reactor again and again and again (thus solving both a fuel and a waste problem).  The degree of attractiveness of nuclear energy is very much in the eye of the beholder; how attractive did nuclear energy look in 2007 when OPEC had the U.S. by the balls (yet again) and the NIMBY crowd from the 1970s was shouting "drill baby drill!"?  I've recommended it to you before but if you're serious about understanding energy you should read Huber & Mills' The Bottomless Well since the authors (although espousing a ridiculous supply-side rhetoric which is much more fitting for rock stars than economists) do a fairly decent job of breaking down the energy pie (i.e. what we produce, what we consume) as well as the changes to the same over time.

Humans will always tinker with clever ways to generate energy...

I agree that engineering decisions are all about optimization under constraint... but I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you suggest that our choice is nuclear or renewables: do you honestly not see that your argument would be the one which an oil giant would make (i.e. one of "divide and conquer")?

-------------

Well, you don't really source any of your claims, and nuclear power has gone out of favor in northern CA for some years now so we don't have much local access to the industry. Maybe my points also come from a biased source (a text on environmental science and sustainability: http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Science-Principles-Connections-Solutions/dp/0495383376), but the author's claims are backed by DOE studies.

How do you know that U-mining is "not that dirty"? Tell that to the low-wage Navajo miners the gov't exploited during the Cold War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Exposure_Compensation_Act.

Large scale mining is always dirty with a lot of waste-rock generated, which is radioactive in uranium's case and pollutes groundwater: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/problems-of-uranium-mining-762482.html. I don't know if the U-industry is worse than coal or copper, but mining never has a small eco-footprint.

Even if you don't accept that history, my basic point was that uranium extraction requires energy (which nuclear advocates want us to forget), just like hydrocarbons or renewables. You need to spend energy to make energy. Some may argue that the nuclear cycle is overall "efficient", but please provide calculations then. Some may say that the nuclear cycle is much less carbon-intensive, so I'd like to see proof (ideally from neutral sources). Yes energy and pollution are associated with wind and solar farms also, but after scale-up, fair subsidies, and other improvements, those energy solutions can probably become environmentally and economically sustainable if we change our electricity consumption habits. The sun always has and always will be (by humanity's time scale) Earth's best and cheapest energy source, so why not exploit that rather than the dangerous, expensive, and complex nuclear cycle? Hydrocarbons and nuclear will NEVER be environmentally sustainable, and may not be economically viable as the easy-access reserves are depleted, and if you subtract gov't subsidies. Bottom line, no energy project in the world's history is more expensive than a MW-scale nuclear plant. This is partly because we have to build in so many safeguards in order to avoid accidents, which could be worse than the BP spill. Since the consequences are so dire, that cost will always be associated with nuclear. One can never engineer zero risk.

I don't know why you mention the German example, since they've had 3 major accidents in the 1980's, and partly because of that their government has decided to gradually phase out all their 17 plants by 2020: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Accidents. Though Merkel's government is trying to reverse the decision amid protests: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/germanypoliticsenergynuclear.

Dumb humans build wildly inefficient and net-negative projects all the time. Look at the 3 Gorges Dam in China or the Joint Strike Fighter. We love our Rube Goldberg devices. It may be hard to believe that nuclear is so inefficient, but that shows you how effective industry PR and lobbying has been over the years. I didn't misrepresent data, but I admit that I did selectively present it. Converting electricity to heat is also an efficiency-losing step, so nuclear power that creates electricity for heat is a net energy loss, and looks bad considering other heating methods (passive solar, natural gas). So yeah, I was using the most extreme example, or the worst possible application of nuclear power. If you're using nuclear to power your blender or computer, the energy ratios are better, but still not enough to justify the costs IMO.

I never said that the choice was exclusively nuclear or renewables, but really there aren't many other choices out there. Large nations' energy portfolios should be diverse. But most of us generally understand the pros and cons of hydrocarbon-based electricity, so nuclear and renewables are the only other major alternatives. The suitability of each is case-dependent, but overall you haven't really made any arguments why renewables are inferior to nuclear if the playing field was level. How would you envision our nation's energy economy today if during the OPEC embargo, the government devoted all the resources earmarked for nuclear to renewables? Do you really think we'd be worse off?

-------------

My comments are inline...

Well, you don't really source any of your claims...

As I said my dad is a nuclear engineer and I've maintained an interest in nuclear power over the years so I'm simply sharing what I know; I have an engineering degree as well and most of these things are common sense (for an engineer, at least)...

How do you know that U-mining is "not that dirty"?...

Agreed (mining is a dirty business)... but your point was that uranium mining is somehow especially dirty (which I refute); on the whole it's not necessarily any dirtier than other forms of mining (we probably aren't missing any mountaintops in West Virginia due to uranium mining).

Even if you don't accept that history...

Huber and Mills do a pretty good job of making this point in detail.  Also, for the purposes of this discussion let's say I am a nuclear advocate; I've never asked anyone to forget anything (like, ever).

Some may argue that the nuclear cycle is overall "efficient", but please provide calculations then.

You should be a little more precise when talking about efficiency (like the difference between thermodynamic or Rankine-cycle efficiency, which has a theoretical upper-bound which applies to all steam-based energy generation, say ~40%) and solar-cell efficiency (which is limited to less than 20% with even the newest PV cells).  The numbers you cited with respect to "net energy" aren't really apples-to-apples (which, in most conversations you'll ever hear in the media, boils down to cost per kilowatt-hour as a measure of efficiency).

Some may say that the nuclear cycle is much less carbon-intensive, so I'd like to see proof (ideally from neutral sources).

The daily operation from a nuclear plant doesn't create any carbon output.

Yes energy and pollution are associated with wind and solar farms also...

Actually, they can become sustainable independent of changes to consumption habits.  

The sun always has and always will be (by humanity's time scale) Earth's best and cheapest energy source, so why not exploit that rather than the dangerous, expensive, and complex nuclear cycle?

It's a great idea... but the technology has only increased by a few percentage points in terms of efficiency since the late 1970's.  I suspect the reasons are the same as the answer to the question "Why don't more homes have passive water heaters?"

Hydrocarbons and nuclear will NEVER be environmentally sustainable, and may not be economically viable as the easy-access reserves are depleted, and if you subtract gov't subsidies.

The deadline for exhaustion of hydrocarbons has come and gone more than once and nuclear is not strictly (by definition) "renewable" (i.e. you would run out of uranium and/or waste fuel) at some point... but for all intensive purposes such distinctions are academic.  Also, if your metric for environmental sustainability is acceptance by The Sierra Club then you should probably double-check your assertion.

Bottom line, no energy project in the world's history is more expensive than a MW-scale nuclear plant.

No, this is basically not true; the operating cost for a plant (after it's built) is (as in the case of PG&E's Diablo Canyon) something like $.03/kWh (some plants are known to run at an even lower cost hence my very loose off-the-cuff metric of <$.05); although the plants are capitally intensive you would have a very difficult time demonstrating that the initial capital outlay is somehow more flawed than building some massive piece of pork like a sports stadium (and definitely an impossible time when you consider how long a given reactor can run given the political will v/s how quickly a team can move given the... well... lack of will).  Also, I might argue that developing an operating system is more expensive than a nuclear power plant since the metric you are using (implicitly) does not account for engineering man-hours.

This is partly because we have to build in so many safeguards in order to avoid accidents...

Yes, but you can engineer next to zero risk, which is what a nuclear power plant embodies. Also, most modern reactors don't afford disaster on the scale of Chernobyl (let alone Macondo or Prudoe Bay).  

I don't know why you mention the German example...

I mention it because there was recent news that the "sunset" for the plants has been extended; the extension came by way of executive fiat (and not as a result of any change to the daily operations of the plants in question or to any of the fundamental aspects of the technology).  Also, one can understand why such a decision would be made: if your car is in good repair and it's been paid why would you seek to replace it with another vehicle which is only arguably more compelling (especially when you needs for transportation services are increasing faster than you provide them for yourself)?

Dumb humans build wildly inefficient and net-negative projects all the time. Look at the 3 Gorges Dam in China or the Joint Strike Fighter. We love our Rube Goldberg devices.

Some kinds of toys for certain kinds of boys; I can't recall how the expression goes.

It may be hard to believe that nuclear is so inefficient...

I believe I stated as much in identifying the problematic comparison... but you should keep in mind who you are trying to convince.  Unless you happen to be living in "gasland" the natural gas (which affords a cheap, clean means of heating your home) also takes energy to extract, refine, and distribute; solar films require rare earth elements and even solar panels require semiconductor fabrication facilities.  There's no free lunch (liquid or otherwise).

I never said that the choice was exclusively nuclear or renewables...

I suppose I fail to understand what you mean by "if the playing field was level"; there's no question that The Obama Administration is doing everything within its power to advance an agenda of energy diversity (and security) by way of renewables.  Without the incentives being offered renewables would not even be conceivable barring the most extreme circumstances (i.e. $150/barrel oil, supply disruptions, a capacity for America to transcend its political cycles and learn from its previous missteps) and/or government mandate.  Besides, the onus is not on me to prove that renewables are somehow inferior (I'm actually quite keen about them); rather, the onus is on you to somehow show nuclear is inferior and/or not a valid piece of the energy diversity and security puzzle since that is how you started the discussion)!

How would you envision our nation's energy economy today if during the OPEC embargo, the government devoted all the resources earmarked for nuclear to renewables? Do you really think we'd be worse off? 

Like, would we have avoided the post-apocalyptic nightmare brought on by that peanut-farming nuke-tender Jimmy Carter and his hair-brained policies of moderate consumption?  Um... no.

-------------

I never said U-mining was especially dirty vs. other forms of mining. If you reference my first email, I actually said it was merely energy-intensive, but so is most mining. The more I read about radon contamination and groundwater risk, I'm starting to think that it is a lot dirtier. And for the record, I believe mountaintop removal is now prohibited in the US, partly because of eco-protests, but mostly because all the superficial coal is exploited, thereby necessitating costlier and more dangerous subterranean mining. That increases the chance of an Upper Big Branch-like accident, even if mining firms follow regulations, but that is the price we are apparently willing to pay in the West for our lifestyle. Of course the Chinese coal industry is much worse with 100's of miners dying annually.

Your tangent on thermodynamic efficiency misses the point. Of course all energy systems are inefficient from a purely input-output standpoint. Even the living cell, which is one of the most efficient machines ever, loses at least 10% of ATP chemical bond energy to heat waste, but that is the 2nd law in action. The net energy I discussed is how much energy output you get out of a modality vs. the energy it took to produce and implement it. Yes a KW wind turbine is inefficient, but if for argument's sake they only cost $1 to make and install, then their inherent energy conversion inefficiency can be overcome by volume. If a perfectly Carnot efficient GW-scale device costs $1T to make, 20 years to build, and has a 40 year service life, then it's probably not worth it. Thermo efficiency is an especially ludicrous argument for you to make for renewables, since by definition their energy sources are nearly infinite from humanity's viewpoint (i.e. we're not going to run out of sun or wind or wave power). If we can just harness a bit of it economically, we're already better off than nuclear.

Don't be naive - of course the daily ops of a nuclear plant produces carbon (workers' commute, transporting uranium and other materials, maintenance and repair work, etc.). Surely a nuclear plant's carbon footprint is lower than that of a coal plant, but it's not zero. And as I said before, the nuclear plant is but one aspect of the nuclear cycle, which spews carbon every step of the way.

Of course nuclear isn't renewable, that's my whole point from the get-go. I don't think the renewable distinction is academic. Forget climate change and other pollution for a moment, because as you said we've probably seen peak oil pass us by, and at some point it will cost more energy to extract oil than the useful energy we derive from it. Humans want to develop scaled-up renewable energy partly because it avoids that limitation (most modalities at least, since in the case of biofuels, it's not renewable if we consume it faster than the plant feedstock can grow). Also remember that primitive human societies started with renewable power because that is what was most available (obviously), such as the water wheel, windmill, and burning wood for heat. Over half of humans today still rely on those sources, and it mostly works because they live fairly green lifestyles. We both seem to agree that renewables can also work for industrialized societies with the proper conditions in place. Therefore I don't understand your pejorative comment about the Sierra Club's definition of "sustainable". There's nothing wrong with their definition, which is probably the universal definition anyway. An energy source is sustainable if it's use doesn't cause irreversible environmental degradation (in the human time scale at least), and if we won't run out of it under current and projected consumption rates. Almost every human activity causes some environmental damage. We have to decide how much harm we are willing to commit, and how much abuse we think the planet can take before there are major consequences, that in turn put our societies in danger (like deforestation and irresponsible agriculture causing soil degradation and eventually food shortage).

I said no energy project in history is more expensive than a nuclear plant, which is absolutely true and I challenge you to find an industrial exception (not including pork-barrel research projects like the Hadron Collider or Livermore Lab fusion laser). I am referring to the COST of its construction and maintenance, not the cost of the energy coming out once it is built, which is cheating. I also challenge you to support your 5 cents/kWh claim with an independent reference that also takes the entire fuel cycle costs into account. You can't ignore the up-front costs, nor the building time, nor the effective service life (all sources I've consulted state that Cold War plants have an absolute maximum life of 60 years, and that is with top maintenance and public support, so after that you need to decommission them and build a new one - both very costly). I have no idea why you are comparing all this to a sports stadium, which is neither an energy project, nor as expensive to build and run.

There is absolutely no such thing as zero risk; it's like Carnot efficiency, an asymptote. Humans can get pretty close, but not perfect. I suppose you can argue that such a level is "essentially zero risk". But even for modern plant designs that can run without humans for X years (in the event of a pandemic or neutron bomb or something), after that they will melt down or fall apart and contaminate. And I don't think plants are designed to withstand an 8.0 quake, crashing 747, or warfare. Yes we try to build plants far away from faults and such, but you can't protect them 100%.

Maybe the Obama admin. is trying to do "everything in its power" to advance renewables, but their power is limited and it's late in the game. What I mean by a level playing field should be obvious - due to socioeconomic and political considerations over the years, dirty energy (including nuclear) has gotten much more financial/government support than renewables. So Obama can't make up for that decades-long gap. The GOP essentially killed the Obama energy agenda anyway, at least for his first term. And without a carbon tax and end to nuclear subsidies, renewables will never have a really fair shake because we'd still be externalizing the environmental and health costs of dirty energy. I've already said that scaled-up renewable energy also produces some carbon and pollution, but less than what nuclear or hydrocarbons produce. And of course I agree that energy conservation is better than needing to build more energy capacity, even if it is renewable. I've said that in at least 3 previous emails, so I didn't feel the need to repeat it here.

The onus may be on me, but I think I've sufficiently supported my point. On the other hand, you have made selective and tangential counter points that aren't supported by any data. Why is nuclear inferior? Cost and pollution. You failed to produce any evidence to the contrary (and you've especially avoided the topics of costly plant decommissioning and waste management). All you've basically said is, "Trust me that the electricity coming out of a nuclear plant costs 5 cents/kWh if you ignore the up-front costs." The whole point of nuclear's inferiority is its huge up-front (and back-end) costs.

And one last point - there is no nuclear power without fuel supply. I forgot to add this to my original email but an MIT study estimates that the Earth has enough uranium for 1,000 GW-scale reactors for at least 50 years. Sounds great, but actually our ability to discover, mine, and produce fuel-grade material will not be able to keep up with the industry's hopes for growth. Each GW-size plant requires about 200 metric tons of uranium per year. Multiply that over all plants, and fuel production can't keep up: in 2004 plants needed 68,000 metric tons of fuel, but all mines only produced 39,000, with the remainder coming from Cold War inventories, recycling, and conversions of weapons-grade material. But our stockpiles are due to run out by 2020, possibly leading to a nuclear fuel shortage. I guess you could argue that we'll just make new mines. Do a Google search for the uranium mining industries in Australia, Colorado, and the Dakotas, and see how that is working out.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/nuclear/WhyNuclearNotSustainable.htm

------------

i lived about 15 miles away from TMI in 1979.  I can tell you right now, they lied about the emmissions from that leak. Fish kills, dead cows with sores were found downwind in the first couple of days after the leak.

 My father was not a nuclear engineer, but he was a good soldier and he watched over a big hole in almagordo testing grounds 5 years after the bomb was tested.  My father died from multifoci maligniancies that are indicative of radiation exposure(I did work in environmental cancinogen research and the PI I worked with wrote many papers regarding this type of cancer associated exclusively with ionizing radiation exposure).  he was never sick at almagordo and it took 50 years to catch up with him but it killed him nonetheless.  I am supposing that most likely I will suffer the same fate from my exposures in 1979.

The benefit to these plants is the money's made and the plant's long gone before the illnesses start.  With current trends, most likely they would claim that there is little proof tying the rad. exp. and the cancers together.  Is this worth it to you?  Is this the risk you want to take?  Then the contractors, the plant owners and all who profit from the building of these plants should be bound to live in the shadow of the cooling towers. 

Also, TMI is not paid off.  Lmerick power plant(35mi. east of TMI) is not paid off.  That region has one of the highest electricity rates in the country due to the payments on these plants.