Nuclear Power is not going away.......or is it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok, in light of the Fukashima plant in Japan near melt down conditions, there has been a ton of nuclear news, and most of it is has either been sensational, conflicting or ignorant. The amount of crap the press reports that makes me think they have no clue is about 70% of it.

We have heard that the plant was in total China Syndrome mode, and the truth is it is a serious issue, but short term and likely not life threatening unless you are the ones dealing with it up close. That is a sad tragedy, but in a nation that has probably 20000 people missing or dead, the death's of these brave souls trying to get this thing under control will be just more names on the list.

No, what I want to debate, is the pros and cons of nuclear power and talk about the reality that it is the best way of producing power that is "green" once you have maximized or dammed up all the watersources. Solar and Wind are great ideas but not practical in the large scale the way nuclear power is. Coal, Oil, and Gas are all used to produce power, but with the GWG theory of global warming, they are emitters. Nuclear is not.

Nuclear however, has its issues. It is horribly expensive to set up, with a lot of Environmental assessment issues and red tape. Fear of these plants wont be going away thanks to this mess with Fukashima.

That said, I live between two large Nuclear sites in Ontario. Pickering A and B are 4 reactor stations (8, 2 decommisioned, 6 operational ) and Darlington GS, with 4 more. CANDU reactors using heavy water for moderation of the reaction and to transfer the heat to the heat exchanger to make steam. The CANDU's use U238 in a purified form as fuel, not enriched, and the basic fuel pellets that go into the fuel bundles is at a very low level of radioactivity until it actually starts the fission process. You can literally hold the Uranium in your hand and not have anything close to any real issue for radiation. So it is a safe system, and it is designed to be refuelled on the fly, and to be shut down really quick in an emergency (the core can be emptied of the heavy water very quickly, and since it is required to keep the reaction going with this low level of uranium fuel, the reaction stops, almost assuring no real danger ever of a melt down). The protocols these plants have to conform to is outrageously complicated, and hence a very high cost to get them built BUT it is done for safety, and they seem to run 20 to 30 years without any major retooling or extensive maintenance.

So I feel safe. Since this province has 12 million people, and we get over half our power from nuclear power (8 reactors total, 2 more are at Kincardine ON on Lake Huron), we are married to this way of making electricity whether anyone likes it or not.

What say the rest of you? What do you fear or know about nuclear power as practiced in your countries and what are the issues?

[Mark]

Those campaigning for a big cut in CO2 emissions should be big supporters of nuclear power as this is the best way to go about it. But they tend to be the same people who campaign against both!

[markabilly]

who needs power, just head out to the hills of arkansaw and live off the land....

[BleAivano]

Nuclear (fission nuclear)Power is not going away.......or is it?

Imo it depends on if scientists can get (nuclear)fusion power to work and to be cost and energy efficient.

I saw a documentary about the HiPER project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER) and i was really fascinated about it.
This type of fusion used deuterium (2H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium)) and tritium (3H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium)) which are two different versions
of hydrogen. These can be extracted from regular sea water and as we all know there is quite allot of sea water on our planet. But obviously there is still a long long way to go until the fusion is here.

until any possible fusionpower is available i dont think we have much choice but to continue with regular modern fission power. Only the most naive believe that wind and solar power can replace nuclear power.

During the past winter in Sweden, when the electricity was needed as the most during the very cold days that were around x-mas and new year. The wind power basically didn't generate any electricity at all. This is because the very cold weather were generated by an extensive high pressure which means very cold weather but also very calm conditions with almost no winds. The around 1100 windpower mills generated on average less then 40MW/day. The nuclear reactors on the other hand generated over 7000MW despite that some of the reactors were offline due to "maintenance".

[Mark]

Extradite from is easy to say. Hydrogen can be extracted from water but it takes electricity to do it!

[race aficionado]

It will go away once we realize how dangerous and damaging it is to us and our planet.

I'm no expert but I go with what I am seeing right now and with what I am learning about nuclear waste now that it is a 'hot" and "radioactive" topic.

No nukes damit!


:s mokin:

[Sonic]

Those campaigning for a big cut in CO2 emissions should be big supporters of nuclear power as this is the best way to go about it. But they tend to be the same people who campaign against both!

Amen! If you're going to campaign against something have a VIABLE alternative.

[Rollo]

Australia is a vast country full of nothing, has relatively few earthquakes because it sits squarely on a tectonic plate, and has an abudant supply of Uranium.

Australia is a perfect candidate for nuclear power and it's scanadlous that it doesn't already use it.

http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2011/03/horse-1161-australia-and-nuclear.html
The truth should bet staring us in the face. Australia suffers an earthquake actually on the continent as opposed to offshore roughly every 13 years and at an average of only 5.8333 on the Richter Scale. In contrast Japan in the past week has had more earthquakes of 6 and above than the entire of the records in Australia by nearly a factor of 90.
When it comes to earthquakes, Australia is ludicrously stable. I bet that you actually have more chance of being killed by a falling toilet, than ever feeling an earthquake in your life in Australia let alone actually being killed from it.
If that then is the main reason why we don't use nuclear power in Australia, it's a pretty pathetic one.
- Me, March 15, 2011

[Tazio]

The issue is (and I have not heard other voices state) having a proactive international organization that can differentiate between a legitimate efficient facility, producing large volumes of non-carbon, energy, and a sitting dirty bomb. This is not meant as a definition of Japans facilities. It is just this citizen’s belief that large utility companies are given too much latitude in policing themselves. Responsible citizens should have a clear understanding that there are areas of our planet where it is safer to accept something less than a carbon free fuel generating facility, and others that pose minimal risk to the environment where Fission is a very low risk form of generating electricity. I have stated earlier that I have one semester of college physics under my belt. It is hardly a credential, especially considering that that experience was in the fall semester of 1973. The reason I feel that that deserves mention is that I had a brilliant professor and at that time she suggested that Cold Fusion would very likely be available within 20 years. Almost 17 years past that prediction we are no closer to achieving any form of fusion due to the extreme amount of heat needed to manage something akin to fusion for a micro second. One thing that Chuck mentioned was what a shame it is that we abandoned a recycling of spent radioactive material. This discussion never gets very far because it is a polarizing issue from citizens that think it is more of important to people that know less than I do in this area (which is somewhere slightly above your average person that takes any interest in science). to repulse this subject, than letting it go. The last time I checked there was only one of these facilities and it is in France. The fact that The U.S. President that decided to defund it was a Certified Nuclear Generator Operator before he was a president. In case you don't know who I am referring to you are an active part of the problem. Having said that, and not wishing to antagonize anyone. If we can't get this done we really don't as a country deserve one. Perhaps Canadians are more politically responsible to maintain a facility as it is a huge money maker, while simultaneously being a tremendous responsibility. We are well into the 21st century. I think it is time to put aside stereotypes, and do what it is that may diminish the income of other forms of energy generation. This in my opinion needs to be a purpose driven endeavor, independent of any special interest. It is in the interest of all citizens

[markabilly]

The issue is (and I have not heard other voices state) having a proactive international organization that can differentiate between a legitimate efficient facility, producing large volumes of non-carbon, energy, and a sitting dirty bomb. This is not meant as a definition of Japans facilities. It is just this citizen’s belief that large utility companies are given too much latitude in policing themselves. Responsible citizens should have a clear understanding that there are areas of our planet where it is safer to accept something less than a carbon free fuel generating facility, and others that pose minimal risk to the environment where Fission is a very low risk form of generating electricity. I have stated earlier that I have one semester of college physics under my belt. It is hardly a credential, especially considering that that experience was in the fall semester of 1973. The reason I feel that that deserves mention is that I had a brilliant professor and at that time she suggested that Cold Fusion would very likely be available within 20 years. Almost 17 years past that prediction we are no closer to achieving any form of fusion due to the extreme amount of heat needed to manage something akin to fusion for a micro second. One thing that Chuck mentioned was what a shame it is that we abandoned a recycling of spent radioactive material. This discussion never gets very far because it is a polarizing issue from citizens that think it is more of important to people that know less than I do in this area (which is somewhere slightly above your average person that takes any interest in science). to repulse this subject, than letting it go. The last time I checked there was only one of these facilities and it is in France. The fact that The U.S. President that decided to defund it was a Certified Nuclear Generator Operator before he was a president. In case you don't know who I am referring to you are an active part of the problem. Having said that, and not wishing to antagonize anyone. If we can't get this done we really don't as a country deserve one. Perhaps Canadians are more politically responsible to maintain a facility as it is a huge money maker, while simultaneously being a tremendous responsibility. We are well into the 21st century. I think it is time to put aside stereotypes, and do what it is that may diminish the income of other forms of energy generation. This in my opinion needs to be a purpose driven endeavor, independent of any special interest. It is in the interest of all citizens

must be back on the kool aid, cause you now talk a little sense. The prez was jimmy C.

Some day fusion may be the econmic reality that will leave these middle eastern types blowing sand in the wind, to say nothing of big oil.....but till then.....

I wonder how I can get Dunnel off his soap box and saddle him up to do some frontline, point of the spear ground work in Libya?

[airshifter]

Extradite from is easy to say. Hydrogen can be extracted from water but it takes electricity to do it!

Not so. One of the most efficient ways to produce hydrogen is by heat... which most people associate with electricity or another means to create heat. A nuclear plant deals with removing heat on a regular basis. There were some very interesting Department of Energy studies about combining the two. Not only could the heat of a nuclear plant be used to produce hydrogen, it could also be used in pressure vessels to compress the hydrogen, taking another of the disadvantages of hydrogen use away from the equation.

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

[Bob Riebe]

Not so. One of the most efficient ways to produce hydrogen is by heat... which most people associate with electricity or another means to create heat. A nuclear plant deals with removing heat on a regular basis. There were some very interesting Department of Energy studies about combining the two. Not only could the heat of a nuclear plant be used to produce hydrogen, it could also be used in pressure vessels to compress the hydrogen, taking another of the disadvantages of hydrogen use away from the equation.

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.
Green-- ROFLMAO!

There is no such thing as green but to even call nuclear even by that misnomer- thngs get curiouser and curiouser.

[race aficionado]

If you don't mind reading and have the time, here is an article/interview that discusses Cold Nuclear Fusion.

http://share-international.org/archives/Science-tech/sci_chunveil.html

[Mark]

Not so. One of the most efficient ways to produce hydrogen is by heat... which most people associate with electricity or another means to create heat. A nuclear plant deals with removing heat on a regular basis. There were some very interesting Department of Energy studies about combining the two. Not only could the heat of a nuclear plant be used to produce hydrogen, it could also be used in pressure vessels to compress the hydrogen, taking another of the disadvantages of hydrogen use away from the equation.

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

But doesn't the nuclear station use the heat to drive steam turbines? Are you saying they have significant left over heat? If so why is this not used to drive more turbines?

[Tazio]

If you don't mind reading and have the time, here is an article/interview that discusses Cold Nuclear Fusion.

http://share-international.org/archives/Science-tech/sci_chunveil.html

Great read RA,
I had no idea of anything like this in the works. It's a great platform for conspiracy theorists. Something special interests have fine tuned an opposition for. (that is my conspiracy theory) ;) Actually I am more interested in practical application. For instance How practical would it be for your garden variety Necrophiliac.
Can it simultaneously be used without a dedicated refrigerant, because I think I could use the heat gain on Billybob's wood-chucker as I think she is actually an ice queen? A cold calculating minx. (to say nothing about donkey’s old lady) turning my king-size into a caldera of Yellowstonian proportions.
On the other hand, If it could be used to power a heat exchange aka refrigerant, it could be the Necrophiliac’s stock in trade
R.A. these are the questions that must be addressed

:s ailor: moving forward on the ground!

http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/98/6d735de4bd3b4ac59b764a530ceb11ce/l.jpg

We've come for your daughter Chuck

[Malbec]

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

Whilst nuclear is definitely far greener and safer than most other power sources its expense and the long lead times required to build a new powerplant (both for political and engineering reasons) mean it doesn't make sense for a lot of countries though it still does for others.

Countries will have to look at nuclear power with their own needs in mind. Australia does not need nuclear power as it has abundant coal and has a population that doesn't appear to be calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Japan may well carry on with its nuclear programme as the reason it was started, to reduce dependence on imported oil and gas, hasn't changed. For most other countries, especially those in Europe, I think nuclear power is dead in the water and has been for a while. Gas fired powerplants are far cheaper and even wind power is cheaper and more acceptable to the population than nuclear.

[Mark]

Wind cheaper than nuclear? Not a chance!

[Malbec]

Wind cheaper than nuclear? Not a chance!

Once you take into account all the hidden costs and also the subsidies available for the former, it is.

Although I am talking from the POV of the private sector which is the sector that is actually involved in producing these plants. The overall costs might be similar.

[chuck34]

Once you take into account all the hidden costs and also the subsidies available for the former, it is.

Although I am talking from the POV of the private sector which is the sector that is actually involved in producing these plants. The overall costs might be similar.

You sure?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

having looted the taxpayers of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, seeks to expand upon their multi-billion-dollar foothold half a world away on the shores of the distant Potomac River. European wind developers are fleeing the EU's expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake. But their game is not over. Already they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States.

The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles -- but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California "big three" locations -- Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio -- considered among the world's best wind sites.

From its beginnings as a slogan of the anti-nuclear movement, wind energy has always been tied to taxpayer support and government intervention. Wind farms got their first boost with the Carter-era Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) which encouraged states to enact their own tax incentives.

Without government intervention, utilities normally avoid wind energy.

No coal or nuclear power plant has ever been replaced by wind energy.

[schmenke]

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.

Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.

I can’t be bothered to post links. Google it for yourselves.

[Malbec]

You sure?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

Yes I'm sure. As your links posted, given the subsidies available for wind power its costs for the power industry is less than that of nuclear.

In most western countries, the state does not build powerplants. They merely regulate the power industry and try to affect its behaviour with subsidies which can be of varying size. The power industry decides what to build and I'm explaining things from their point of view.

Admittedly my only source is a trader who deals in the financing of power production infrastructure throughout the world, but as far as he can see the major growth areas are in wind and natural gas powerplants. There is little interest in nuclear power from the power generation industry because of its costs and the political headaches associated with it.

Take a look at Germany that has decided to reconsider its new reactor programme after the events in Japan. Those projects had gone pretty far down the line already, the companies involved had already invested quite a bit of cash. Now, because nuclear energy is such a political football it looks like that money has gone down the drain.

Few other energy sources are as risky as an investment as nuclear because projects can be cancelled by fickle governments or face constant delays thanks to anti-nuclear pressure groups.

Factor all these things in and it just isn't seen as a worthy power source by the industry. Tell me how many new powerplants are being built in the Western world?

The countries that are producing the most new nuclear powerplants are the ones that are exempt from the pressures I described above, ie where nuclear power is exempt from political pressures because there is no or little democratic process, eg China and Russia.

[chuck34]

Yes I'm sure. As your links posted, given the subsidies available for wind power its costs for the power industry is less than that of nuclear.

Ok I mis-understood you then. I thought that you were saying that wind power was cheaper without subsidies. I would agree with you, factoring in the subsidies it would probably be cheaper for wind.


In most western countries, the state does not build powerplants. They merely regulate the power industry and try to affect its behaviour with subsidies which can be of varying size. The power industry decides what to build and I'm explaining things from their point of view.

Admittedly my only source is a trader who deals in the financing of power production infrastructure throughout the world, but as far as he can see the major growth areas are in wind and natural gas powerplants. There is little interest in nuclear power from the power generation industry because of its costs and the political headaches associated with it.

I would agree with that. Natural gas is probably the plant of choice from the suppliers, but they are also getting somewhat forced into wind.


Take a look at Germany that has decided to reconsider its new reactor programme after the events in Japan. Those projects had gone pretty far down the line already, the companies involved had already invested quite a bit of cash. Now, because nuclear energy is such a political football it looks like that money has gone down the drain.

Yeah, you're right. But that doesn't mean that all the political BS is completely justified. I think there has been waaaaaay too much over reaction to the Japanese situation. Just like prior to that the over reaction from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were over the top and for a prolonged period of time.


Few other energy sources are as risky as an investment as nuclear because projects can be cancelled by fickle governments or face constant delays thanks to anti-nuclear pressure groups.

Factor all these things in and it just isn't seen as a worthy power source by the industry.

I would agree with you on this. But again, I think there is too much over reaction from too many sources that are ignorant, or mis-informed, about nuclear power and it's dangers and risks.

[Malbec]

I would agree with you on this. But again, I think there is too much over reaction from too many sources that are ignorant, or mis-informed, about nuclear power and it's dangers and risks.

Yes, and its a vicious cycle. Part of the press feeds on the paranoia and ignorance of its readership to sensationalise purely to get more sales whereas little is done to increase the level of knowledge of the public.

All this talk about meltdown, Chernobyl and the threat of radiation to the public from Fukushima is a case in point.

The problem with nuclear power though is that it has to make a case for itself to a fearful public that does not understand it but is far more tolerant of other power sources without questioning them. That is the political reality and sadly why nuclear power isn't the future.

[Retro Formula 1]

Nuclear is not economically viable?

USA uses Nuclear and they have an abundance of Coal but Nuclear makes sense to them because they have more than anyone else. Surely they would go for a cheaper option.

China is a growing economy but per capita income is much lower than Western countries yet they have invested heavily in Nuclear so it makes economic sense to them. Same with India. They both have huge coastlines so why minimal tidal?

Russia again has massive natural resourses yet has a big nuclear project project so it makes financial sense to them rather than wind farms.

And that's just the economic reasons which are insignificant when compared to the pollution and safety issues. This world is going downhill with Hydrocarbons and Nuclear is the only current viable option. I would rather some clean, green energy that is free, is fuelled by sh*t and farts scented flowers, but until that happens, NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY OPTION!

[chuck34]

Yes, and its a vicious cycle. Part of the press feeds on the paranoia and ignorance of its readership to sensationalise purely to get more sales whereas little is done to increase the level of knowledge of the public.

All this talk about meltdown, Chernobyl and the threat of radiation to the public from Fukushima is a case in point.

The problem with nuclear power though is that it has to make a case for itself to a fearful public that does not understand it but is far more tolerant of other power sources without questioning them. That is the political reality and sadly why nuclear power isn't the future.

I would agree with all of that except your last statement.

Nuclear is not the immediate future. But it must become a bigger part of our long-term future. We must do a better job of educating our children (not just on this issue either, but in general) so that they will not harbor any irrational fears of nuclear power. Part of that must also be that we need to have a rational discussion about waste, re-processing, and the like. That is a big issue that needs to be taken care of. And as someone else brought up, the fact that the ban was imposed by Carter, or all people, is just a real head scratcher to me.

[Malbec]

USA uses Nuclear and they have an abundance of Coal but Nuclear makes sense to them because they have more than anyone else. Surely they would go for a cheaper option.

They are.

Thats why the US nuclear industry isn't growing. Almost all of their reactors were built in the 60s and 70s. Only two new powerplants are under construction. There is no plan at the moment to replace those existing nuclear reactors with new ones when they are decommissioned.


China is a growing economy but per capita income is much lower than Western countries yet they have invested heavily in Nuclear so it makes economic sense to them. Same with India. They both have huge coastlines so why minimal tidal?

Russia again has massive natural resourses yet has a big nuclear project project so it makes financial sense to them rather than wind farms.

re: China and Russia see my previous posts.

re: India, the options are not restricted merely to nuclear and tidal. They have a solid and cheap natural gas supply from Iran and plenty of coal which they take advantage of. They had just agreed a nuclear reactor deal which when I visited India a week ago was being reviewed due to safety concerns. Again, as a democracy they have to cater for public concern about nuclear safety however misguided it may be. I don't see the Indians building many more nuclear reactors if their public opinion is set against it.


And that's just the economic reasons which are insignificant when compared to the pollution and safety issues. This world is going downhill with Hydrocarbons and Nuclear is the only current viable option. I would rather some clean, green energy that is free, fuelled by sh*t and farts scented flowers, but until that happens, NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY OPTION!

Read my previous posts re: the economic factors. Sadly the power industry does not care so much for pollution except where such concerns affect costs through subsidies or financial penalties, and there are precious few subsidies around for nuclear power. The industry reality is that they are not considering nuclear power as an option in Western countries. The number of new reactors in production confirms this.

[chuck34]

USA uses Nuclear and they have an abundance of Coal but Nuclear makes sense to them because they have more than anyone else. Surely they would go for a cheaper option.

I agree with you whole-heartidly. Just one point of clarification. The US has more reactors than anyone else. But our percentage of total power output provided by nuclear power is quite far down the list. The US is about 20%, whereas France leads that list at about 75% or so. It's just a minor point, but one that should be pointed out.

[Malbec]

Nuclear is not the immediate future. But it must become a bigger part of our long-term future. We must do a better job of educating our children (not just on this issue either, but in general) so that they will not harbor any irrational fears of nuclear power. Part of that must also be that we need to have a rational discussion about waste, re-processing, and the like. That is a big issue that needs to be taken care of. And as someone else brought up, the fact that the ban was imposed by Carter, or all people, is just a real head scratcher to me.

Hey I agree with you, if I ran things nuclear power would definitely be my choice. I also agree about education but I'm pessimistic. As a species we're appalling at assessing relative risk even in matters where we have a decent understanding of the subject.

Nuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people. Even 70 years later the image of the mushroom cloud is what people tend to think of as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. Its a deep seated fear and I really don't think we can get rid of that phobia despite raising public understanding.

[Tazio]

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.











Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.

I can’t be bothered to post links. Google it for yourselves.

Quite right old bean, Australia needs Nuclear power if they are completely reliant on coal.

Let’s not forget that we have a serious situation with auto exhaust. My Fellow Americans are some of the worst offenders.
Then again everyone on this board is culpable :s mokin:

[chuck34]

Hey I agree with you, if I ran things nuclear power would definitely be my choice. I also agree about education but I'm pessimistic. As a species we're appalling at assessing relative risk even in matters where we have a decent understanding of the subject.

Nuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people. Even 70 years later the image of the mushroom cloud is what people tend to think of as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. Its a deep seated fear and I really don't think we can get rid of that phobia despite raising public understanding.

It can be done. It just takes hard work. Oh wait, we have a pretty appalling record at hard work too. I guess we're just going to have to get used to not having electricty every time we want it, just like our friends in the UK. :(

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100078707/there-is-nothing-smart-about-rationing-electricity/

let us consider the words of Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid, interviewed last week on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030. We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that. We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

[Retro Formula 1]

Hey I agree with you, if I ran things nuclear power would definitely be my choice. I also agree about education but I'm pessimistic. As a species we're appalling at assessing relative risk even in matters where we have a decent understanding of the subject.

Nuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people. Even 70 years later the image of the mushroom cloud is what people tend to think of as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. Its a deep seated fear and I really don't think we can get rid of that phobia despite raising public understanding.

Nail, hit, head. :up:

Also, isn't it perversly ironic that the main opposition to Nuclear Power has spread through Bra Burning elderly maidens on Greenham Common, through CND and into mainstream Green Party politics where's Nuclear is the only mainstream Green alternative.

I think they have been putting Nuclear down for so long that they fear losing any credibility they have if they do an about turn at this stage. What a pity.

[race aficionado]

Sorry for the copy & paste but here it goes.
Another good read if you wish to hear other points of view:

HOW SAFE IS NUCLEAR POWER?

By Dietrich Fischer (*)

BASEL, March (IPS) We all can only feel deep sympathy and compassion for the victims of the terrible catastrophe that befell Japan on 11 March 2011. One of the world's largest earthquakes ever of magnitude 9, a 10-meter tsunami that flattened many coastal areas, freezing weather for the survivors sleeping in the open, shortages of food and water, and a series of explosions and fires at the six nuclear power plants in Fukushima, with the danger of a meltdown that would release huge amounts of radioactivity.

Some advocates of nuclear power have long argued that a major accident is about as likely as being hit by a meteorite. In 1975, the nuclear industry asked Professor Norman Rasmussen to produce a report that would reassure the public about the safety of nuclear energy. The report concluded that the probability of a complete core meltdown is about 1 in 20,000 per reactor per year.

Reality has shown this to be a gross underestimation. The three best known serious nuclear power accidents are those of Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl 1986, and now Fukushima. But there have been many more accidents and partial core meltdowns releasing radioactivity.

A study commissioned by Greenpeace concluded that the Chernobyl accident may have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone between 1990 and 2004. The nuclear power plants in Fukushima have about thirty times as much radioactive material as the reactor that exploded in Chernobyl, and Japan is much more densely populated.

Even if there were no accidents, no solution has yet been found in over 50 years for the safe storage of the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. One of the by-products, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,100 years. That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations?

The "precautionary principle" urges us to avoid the worst possible outcome of any decision. This implies that we should dismantle all nuclear power plants.

Are there any alternatives to nuclear energy? Indeed there are safe ways to produce renewable energy with wind, solar power, wave and ocean-thermal energy, which do not contribute to the greenhouse effect, unlike the burning of fossil fuels.

The Desertec project aims to generate electricity in deserts using solar power plants, wind parks and to transmit this electricity to consumption centers. The first region for application of this concept is in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Europe. Solar power systems and wind parks spread over 17,000 km2 (0.2% of the Sahara desert) would provide a considerable part of the electricity demand of the MENA countries and provide continental Europe with 15% of its electricity needs.

Why do we have nuclear power despite all of its dangers for current and future generations? There is a simple reason. Nuclear power plants are highly profitable for a few, at the expense of other people's safety. Electricity from a nuclear power station can be cut off if people do not pay their bills, but energy from the sun collected on house roofs cannot be cut off. It makes people independent. The nuclear lobby does not want that.

Democracy requires that decision are made by those affected, and that voters be fully and truthfully informed. People have been lied to about the safety of nuclear energy, and have in most cases not been allowed to participate in decisions about nuclear energy. That must change.

It is remarkable that all insurance companies have so far refused to insure against nuclear accidents, because they argue that they do not want to risk their money based on some professor's calculations claiming the risk is low. What if he is wrong? Insurance companies insist to base their risk calculations on real experience.

Because insurance companies refuse to cover the risks of nuclear accidents, the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 commits the US federal government to cover such risks. Other countries have similar legislation. This represents an enormous subsidy by the taxpayers to the nuclear industry. If the nuclear power industry were forced by law to pay for insurance against accidents, and pay for the safe disposal of its waste, we would have no nuclear power plants.

It is true that solar energy is currently more expensive than electricity from nuclear plants. But this is partly because of the indirect subsidy for nuclear power, and the shortage of research into alternative sources of energy. If a fraction of the research funds spent for nuclear power had been devoted to safe sources like wind and solar, we would most likely have cheap alternatives today.

If insurance companies, the experts in estimating risks, are unwilling to risk their money, why should people be forced to risk their lives?


(COPYRIGHT © IPS)

(*) Dietrich Fischer, Academic Director of the World Peace Academy and Director of the TRANSCEND University Press, is author of "Nonmilitary Aspects of Security" and "Preventing War in the Nuclear Age."

[BDunnell]

Hey I agree with you, if I ran things nuclear power would definitely be my choice. I also agree about education but I'm pessimistic. As a species we're appalling at assessing relative risk even in matters where we have a decent understanding of the subject.

Nuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people. Even 70 years later the image of the mushroom cloud is what people tend to think of as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. Its a deep seated fear and I really don't think we can get rid of that phobia despite raising public understanding.

And, worse, its recent reputation is clouded (no pun intended) by Chernobyl. It's akin to thinking that all airlines are like mid-1980s Aeroflot.

[chuck34]

The report concluded that the probability of a complete core meltdown is about 1 in 20,000 per reactor per year.

Reality has shown this to be a gross underestimation. The three best known serious nuclear power accidents are those of Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl 1986, and now Fukushima. But there have been many more accidents and partial core meltdowns releasing radioactivity.

Stopped reading after that. What a gross misrepresentation. They site the probability of a complete core meltdown, then state reality is worse, and talk about three accidents that didn't have complete meltdowns (Chernobyl might have, I'm not sure if it was complete or not, but the main issue was the steam overpressure). That article is a pretty clear-cut case of sensational journalism at it's "finest". They can't even be bothered to do some basic research.

[Malbec]

Sorry for the copy & paste but here it goes.
Another good read if you wish to hear other points of view:

Might be another point of view but its still a poorly written article.



Reality has shown this to be a gross underestimation. The three best known serious nuclear power accidents are those of Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl 1986, and now Fukushima. But there have been many more accidents and partial core meltdowns releasing radioactivity.

Really? More partial core meltdowns? Where's the list? Given that that would render the reactor unusable it would have a big impact regardless of whether radiation was released. Bit like saying that apart from Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been other nuclear attacks around the world. I think we'd have noticed if there were.


A study commissioned by Greenpeace concluded that the Chernobyl accident may have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone between 1990 and 2004. The nuclear power plants in Fukushima have about thirty times as much radioactive material as the reactor that exploded in Chernobyl, and Japan is much more densely populated.

Trying to draw a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima without actually sketching out a direct connection. Bit gutless isn't it?

Hold on though. A total core meltdown like at Chernobyl is only possible if the reactor is still running. Unfortunately for the comparison, all of the Fukushima reactors shut down immediately after the earthquake and remain switched off. Shame really, otherwise the comparison might have had some validity.

Oh yeah, despite the various explosions at Fukushima, none of the reactor containment vessels were breached. Chernobyl didn't have any containment vessels so the reactor was fully exposed and any radioactive materials were released straight into the atmosphere. Oops. Another big difference.

In addition the reactors at Fukushima are coming up to being 40 years old, one was months away from being decommissioned. New reactors have additional safety features that would make accidents even less likely. Its akin to comparing the safety of a '67 VW beetle with that of a modern Golf. Things have moved on.


Even if there were no accidents, no solution has yet been found in over 50 years for the safe storage of the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. One of the by-products, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,100 years. That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations?

Adequate underground storage facilities perhaps? Not exactly difficult.


Why do we have nuclear power despite all of its dangers for current and future generations? There is a simple reason. Nuclear power plants are highly profitable for a few, at the expense of other people's safety. Electricity from a nuclear power station can be cut off if people do not pay their bills, but energy from the sun collected on house roofs cannot be cut off. It makes people independent. The nuclear lobby does not want that.

Conspiracy theory alert. So whats special about nuclear reactors is that only power companies can build them while other power sources can be bought and run by individuals? Damn, should have saved up and bought that gas fired power station when they were on discount.

Nuclear power isn't in competition with home solar panels and wind turbines, its in competition with natural gas, coal, oil and wind farms.


Democracy requires that decision are made by those affected, and that voters be fully and truthfully informed. People have been lied to about the safety of nuclear energy, and have in most cases not been allowed to participate in decisions about nuclear energy. That must change.

Finally some sense. But with democracy comes responsibility, and the public must educate itself about the realities of radiation and the actual risks, not merely heed the scaremongering. Given that in the UK about a quarter of the population does not understand the percentage system sadly I am not holding my breath in hope. The fact that articles like this are taken seriously really is quite sad.

[race aficionado]

Stopped reading after that. What a gross misrepresentation. They site the probability of a complete core meltdown, then state reality is worse, and talk about three accidents that didn't have complete meltdowns (Chernobyl might have, I'm not sure if it was complete or not, but the main issue was the steam overpressure). That article is a pretty clear-cut case of sensational journalism at it's "finest". They can't even be bothered to do some basic research.

So you are not bothered with this either? Too sensationalist?


Even if there were no accidents, no solution has yet been found in over 50 years for the safe storage of the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. One of the by-products, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,100 years. That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations?

[DexDexter]

And, worse, its recent reputation is clouded (no pun intended) by Chernobyl. It's akin to thinking that all airlines are like mid-1980s Aeroflot.

The problem for some of us is that we have Aeroflot reactors (4 RBMK reactors at the Leningrad power plant) some 200kms to the Southeast from where I'm sitting right now.

[schmenke]

...
A study commissioned by Greenpeace concluded that the Chernobyl accident may have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone between 1990 and 2004. ...

As mentioned in my previous post, that figure needs to be put in context: In the last 50+ years the exploitation of fossil fuels has caused far more deaths, health issues and environmental catastrophes than nuclear energy production.


...
The Desertec project aims to generate electricity in deserts using solar power plants, wind parks and to transmit this electricity to consumption centers. The first region for application of this concept is in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Europe. Solar power systems and wind parks spread over 17,000 km2 (0.2% of the Sahara desert) would provide a considerable part of the electricity demand of the MENA countries and provide continental Europe with 15% of its electricity needs....

Sadly there are no similar deserts in Japan :mark:

[race aficionado]

Adequate underground storage facilities perhaps? Not exactly difficult.


See, this is where I am reminded that "expert" comments like this one just demonstrate the ignorance related to this topic, specially when the answer given is ended with the "not exacly difficult" comment.

I am no expert either but given the scientific facts given in terms of the storage life of such polluting and extremely dangerous nuclear waste being stored in, and I quote:
"Adequate underground storage facilities" - how can this be said after what we have just witnessed in terms of natural disasters occurring in our planet?
Yeah, sure, place these adequate underground storage facilities in non earthquake areas but what guarantee do you really have? We are playing with dynamite here . . . no wait, we are playing with radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants with one of the by-products, plutonium 239, that has a half-life of 24,100 years.
What does that mean? That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations? That's a lot of generations and an extremely irresponsible scenario.

That's my opinion - go ahead and have yours but we are all sharing this planet and I for one will do my part so that this adequate underground solution of yours will not be part of my child's future.
:s mokin:

[race aficionado]

Sadly there are no similar deserts in Japan :mark:

True - but the fact is that other ways for reliable energy sources have to be found and I am one of those that believes that Nuclear is not the way to go and that humanity, if allowed, will find a better safer way.
:s mokin:

[BDunnell]

True - but the fact is that other ways for reliable energy sources have to be found and I am one of those that believes that Nuclear is not the way to go and that humanity, if allowed, will find a better safer way.
:s mokin:

I may not entirely agree with you, but I have great respect for this opinion, and hope — perhaps against hope — that it prevails eventually.

[Bob Riebe]

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.-BS there is plenty of coal. Oil- easy oil- is running out there is more than enough out there.
The "experts" say it is depleting and they do not even know where it comes from.-- "The rent is too damn high!'

Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.-- Except for those nasty left over rods.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.- since man started burning coal etc., etc. Are you waiting for nuclear to catch up?


Nukes are fine, if a war never starts
Of course no reasonable enemy would take away its foes power supply, they will just let those nuke plants keep on humming.

[Malbec]

See, this is where I am reminded that "expert" comments like this one just demonstrate the ignorance related to this topic, specially when the answer given is ended with the "not exacly difficult" comment.

I am no expert either but given the scientific facts given in terms of the storage life of such polluting and extremely dangerous nuclear waste being stored in, and I quote:
"Adequate underground storage facilities" - how can this be said after what we have just witnessed in terms of natural disasters occurring in our planet?
Yeah, sure, place these adequate underground storage facilities in non earthquake areas but what guarantee do you really have? We are playing with dynamite here . . . no wait, we are playing with radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants with one of the by-products, plutonium 239, that has a half-life of 24,100 years.
What does that mean? That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations? That's a lot of generations and an extremely irresponsible scenario.

That's my opinion - go ahead and have yours but we are all sharing this planet and I for one will do my part so that this adequate underground solution of yours will not be part of my child's future.
:s mokin:

We clearly have differing ideas of what an adequate underground storage facility is. I'm not talking about a subsurface bunker.

There are shafts of up to 1km deep being dug with chambers for plutonium storage. If there is an earthquake or some other disaster then the shaft may become unusable for further disposal but the plutonium already dumped there will not come up to the surface.

If some untoward event happens strong enough to push the plutonium to the surface from that depth then I suggest that it would be of such magnitude that radioactive contamination would be pretty far down the list of what you should be worried about.

As others have said though, the volume of plutonium waste can be reduced via recycling fuel rods. That too can help.

[Malbec]

I may not entirely agree with you, but I have great respect for this opinion, and hope — perhaps against hope — that it prevails eventually.

I have no problem with the anti-nuclear brigade but I do believe that they should use real arguments with a scientific basis behind them, something they are too often lacking in.

[chuck34]

So you are not bothered with this either? Too sensationalist?

Ummm yeah, it is too sensationalist. We have plenty of ways of dealing with the waste. Storing the spent fuel in on-site pools seems to work fairly well in all cases except where you have a 10meter wall of water come and wash away all power to the cooling pumps. But things could be done to prevent that as well.

Here's some Wiki links (ie simple) for you to get some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Are they fool-proof? No, but what in this world is? Are you going to make me go dig up cases of deaths/injuries related to wind-mills and the like?

[chuck34]

True - but the fact is that other ways for reliable energy sources have to be found and I am one of those that believes that Nuclear is not the way to go and that humanity, if allowed, will find a better safer way.
:s mokin:

If humanity comes up with a better safer and cheaper way to produce energy, I'm on board. I'll be the first one there pushing for it's adoption. But until then I want my fridge to stay on, and the lights to work when I flip the switch. And that includes times when it's dark out and the wind isn't blowing. ;)

[race aficionado]

Ummm yeah, it is too sensationalist. We have plenty of ways of dealing with the waste. Storing the spent fuel in on-site pools seems to work fairly well in all cases except where you have a 10meter wall of water come and wash away all power to the cooling pumps. But things could be done to prevent that as well.

Here's some Wiki links (ie simple) for you to get some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Are they fool-proof? No, but what in this world is? Are you going to make me go dig up cases of deaths/injuries related to wind-mills and the like?

No Chuck, no need to google more stuff and I don't want to be made a fool of when I am shown the amount of beheaded creatures due to loose wind mills. :dozey:

Looking at your links where storage plans are shown, I, me, myself . . . . shudder with the thought of nuclear waste stored in a place where it will take 241,000 years - scientifically speaking - to no longer be a deadly threat to any living creature in this planet of ours.

let's agree to disagree.
:s mokin:

[chuck34]

Looking at your links where storage plans are shown, I, me, myself . . . . shudder with the thought of nuclear waste stored in a place where it will take 241,000 years - scientifically speaking - to no longer be a deadly threat to any living creature in this planet of ours.

Ok let's just say for a second that tomorrow we perfect cold fusion, rendering fission reactors obsolete over-night. Now, what do we do with all the "deadly threats"?


let's agree to disagree.
:s mokin:

I agree that we don't see eye to eye on this. But I'm here for a bit of a diversion from my "everyday" life. Therefore I like to debate people with different views on things. I learn quite a bit by doing that actually. I know I'm a geek, I find fun in learning. :rolleyes:

[Tazio]

I know I'm a geek, I find fun in learning.

I'm glad you mentioned that. The first time I read your signature I knew you were a nerd.
And by the almighty there is nothing wrong with that! I think chicks dig it BTW

[nigelred5]

We clearly have differing ideas of what an adequate underground storage facility is. I'm not talking about a subsurface bunker.

There are shafts of up to 1km deep being dug with chambers for plutonium storage. If there is an earthquake or some other disaster then the shaft may become unusable for further disposal but the plutonium already dumped there will not come up to the surface.

If some untoward event happens strong enough to push the plutonium to the surface from that depth then I suggest that it would be of such magnitude that radioactive contamination would be pretty far down the list of what you should be worried about.


As others have said though, the volume of plutonium waste can be reduced via recycling fuel rods. That too can help.

How long has the debate been going on over Yucca mountain? That still isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.


I'm not against nuclear energy, but I'm not necessisarily an outright advocate either. Either way, it's a way of life around here. It certainly has very real undisputable potential dangers. I've got a large hydroelectric facility 5 miles upstream and another about 20 or so but it only supplies a small fraction of the electricity. We've got two gas fired turbine plants within 10 miles, but most signigicantly, by my count just off of the top of my head, I have 18 active nuclear reactors within a 100 mile radius of my home, 10 of those are within 30 miles, 6 of them are active and directly upstream on the susquehanna river with two them just 10 miles up-stream in our primary and only drinking water supply. We were evacuated and under watch for a long time after TMI, and we have regular warnings and alerts from Peach Bottom as part of our regular emergency warning systems. It's simply a part of life around here. We're absolutely aware of the dangers, but the fact is, I don't live my life in fear of another nuclear accident, and I've actually lived through the only major incident in US history. We're not in an area with any sort of significant earthquake danger, hurricane damage while fairly common, is generally only a cat 1 threat. River flooding is a potential issue but that doesn't truly pose any risk of catastrophic flooding. Tsunamis could possibly be an issue at 8 of them since those are close to the atlantic or the Chesapeake or Delaware Bays.

I accept the risk, but I'm also a strong advocate of clean power options like hydroelectric and wind energy. It may be more expensive absent government subsidies, but every power decision can't be exclusively financial. The lack of potential risk far outweighs the potential for even a partial release of radiation from a nuclear plant, but it simply isn't a viable option everywhere. To be honest, we worry more about a dam collapse than a nuclear incident, and the nuclear plant is on the lake behind the dam.

[chuck34]

To be honest, we worry more about a dam collapse than a nuclear incident, and the nuclear plant is on the lake behind the dam.

Yep, statistically speaking, there is more to be worried about from a hydroelectric dam collapse than a nuclear incident.

[Retro Formula 1]

Looking at your links where storage plans are shown, I, me, myself . . . . shudder with the thought of nuclear waste stored in a place where it will take 241,000 years - scientifically speaking - to no longer be a deadly threat to any living creature in this planet of ours.



OK then. Please tell me the danger posed by Pu239. Do you know what it is, what it does and what threat it poses?

No? I thought not otherwise you wouldn't have quoted some irrelevant statistic about a half life of a product that is so dangerous that the US Navy chuck a load of it in a sealed, preasurised compartment and then chuck in a crew of their finest Submariners ;)

Then we have Pu244 which has a half life of 80 Million Years. That's a much more interesting statistic but I guess we can't go back to the dawn of creation ;)

Seeing as everyone is a fan on cutting and pasting, I though I would paste a little bit about the toxicity on Plutonium. I'm sure everyone read at least the background of what the dangers are before posting on here so this should be nothing new :D



Toxicity

Isotopes and compounds of plutonium are dangerous due to their radioactivity. Contamination by plutonium oxide (spontaneously oxidized plutonium) has resulted from a number of military nuclear accidents where nuclear weapons have burned.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-ATSDR-94)
The alpha radiation plutonium emits does not penetrate the skin but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-Emsley2001-32) The skeleton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeleton), where plutonium is absorbed by the bone surface, and the liver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver), where it collects and becomes concentrated, are at risk.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-Miner1968p545-31) Plutonium is not absorbed into the body efficiently when ingested; only 0.04% of plutonium oxide is absorbed after ingestion.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-Emsley2001-32) What plutonium is absorbed into the body is excreted very slowly, with a biological half-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life) of 200 years.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-95) Plutonium passes only slowly through cell membranes and intestinal boundaries, so absorption by ingestion and incorporation into bone structure proceeds very slowly.[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-CohenMyth-96)[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-97)
Plutonium is more dangerous when inhaled than when ingested. The risk of lung cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer) increases once the total dose equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_dose) of inhaled radiation exceeds 400 mSv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert).[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-Brown-98) The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk for inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average.[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-world-nuclear-99) Ingestion or inhalation of large amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning) and death; no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-inf15-85)
The "hot particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_particle)" theory in which a particle of plutonium dust radiates a localized spot of lung tissue has been tested and found false – such particles are more mobile than originally thought and toxicity is not measurably increased due to particulate form.[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-CohenMyth-96)
However, when inhaled, plutonium can pass into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, plutonium moves throughout the body and into the bones, liver, or other body organs. Plutonium that reaches body organs generally stays in the body for decades and continues to expose the surrounding tissue to radiation and thus may cause cancer.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-EPA-100)
Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed.
These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results.[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-CohenMyth-96) "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-101)[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-102)
Plutonium has a metallic taste.[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-103)
Criticality potential

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Partially-reflected-plutonium-sphere.jpeg/220px-Partially-reflected-plutonium-sphere.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Partially-reflected-plutonium-sphere.jpeg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Partially-reflected-plutonium-sphere.jpeg)
A sphere of simulated plutonium surrounded by neutron-reflecting tungsten carbide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_carbide) blocks in a re-enactment of Harry Daghlian's 1945 experiment


Toxicity issues aside, care must be taken to avoid the accumulation of amounts of plutonium which approach critical mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass_(nuclear)), particularly because plutonium's critical mass is only a third of that of uranium-235.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-Heiserman1992-6) A critical mass of plutonium emits lethal amounts of neutrons and gamma rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray).[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-Miner1968p546-104) Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator) by the hydrogen in water.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-CRC2006p4-27-12)
Criticality accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident) have occurred in the past, some of them with lethal consequences. Careless handling of tungsten carbide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_carbide) bricks around a 6.2 kg plutonium sphere resulted in a fatal dose of radiation at Los Alamos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory) on August 21, 1945, when scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_K._Daghlian,_Jr.) received a dose estimated to be 5.1 Sievert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert) (510 rems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man)) and died 28 days later.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-105) Nine months later, another Los Alamos scientist, Louis Slotin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin), died from a similar accident involving a beryllium reflector and the same plutonium core (the so-called "demon core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core)") that had previously claimed the life of Daghlian.[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-106) These incidents were fictionalized in the 1989 film Fat Man and Little Boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man_and_Little_Boy).
In December 1958, during a process of purifying plutonium at Los Alamos, a critical mass was formed in a mixing vessel, which resulted in the death of a crane operator named Cecil Kelley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Kelley_criticality_accident).[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-CriticalityAccidents-107) Other nuclear accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents) have occurred in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan), and many other countries.[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-CriticalityAccidents-107)


I think the things you are worried about are things like radio-iodine (8 day half life), Strontium (28 Years) and Caesium (30 Years). These are pretty nasty when exposed like Chenybol but again, are used in many medical, scientific and commercial applications.

[Mark]

This might not mean much to our US friends, but if the Japanese reactor were a car, it would be exempt from road tax, have no requirement to fit seatbelts and display a silver on black numberplate. Yes, it's that old! So to say we shouldn't have new plants based upon a 'failure' of an extremely old plant during extreme conditions is foolish indeed.

[Retro Formula 1]

This might not mean much to our US friends, but if the Japanese reactor were a car, it would be exempt from road tax, have no requirement to fit seatbelts and display a silver on black numberplate. Yes, it's that old! So to say we shouldn't have new plants based upon a 'failure' of an extremely old plant during extreme conditions is foolish indeed.

Shhhhhhhh. Don't wake them up. I've just got them off to sleep. ;)

[schmenke]

...
"...BS there is plenty of coal. Oil- easy oil- is running out there is more than enough out there.
The "experts" say it is depleting and they do not even know where it comes from.-- "The rent is too damn high!'..."
.

My point is that we are consuming a non-renewable energy resource at an exponential rate.
Coal is by far the dirtiest source of energy and likely the highest contributor to deaths and human health issues.


...
"...Except for those nasty left over rods...."
.

When figures for cost per kilowatt-hour include the disposal and maintenance of spend rods, nuclear is still comparable with fossil fuel energy production.


...
"......since man started burning coal etc., etc. Are you waiting for nuclear to catch up?..."


:?: Please re-read my post :)


A few more facts to put the world’s energy demands in context:

The USA, with 10% of the world’s population consumes approximately 25% of the world’s oil.
Approximately 30% of which is used to fuel passenger vehicles.

Sadly North Americans are fixated on the use of the passenger vehicle as their primary means of transportation.

If North Americans could reduce the numbers of vehicles on the road during weekday rush hour periods by half, the world’s energy problems would be solved. What is required during rush hours is a means of transporting masses of people from their homes to either a downtown core, or central work district. The passenger vehicle is the most inefficient mode of mass transportation to accomplish this. Next time you’re stuck in rush hour traffic, look around you and count the number of vehicles in which there is more than one person, yet the vehicle is easily capable of transporting 4 :mark: .

A major step to solving the world’s energy problem is that we (specifically western countries) must drastically consume fewer resources. To do that requires radical lifestyle changes. Until we acknowledge that, we can forget about alternate fuel sources such as solar or wind.

[chuck34]

To do that requires radical lifestyle changes. Until we acknowledge that, we can forget about alternate fuel sources such as solar or wind.

So are you the first one to sign up for not being able to turn on a light at night when the wind isn't blowing? Tung only half in cheek.

[Mark]

So are you the first one to sign up for not being able to turn on a light at night when the wind isn't blowing? Tung only half in cheek.

I see wind as only being useful if it's tied up with electricity storage. Currently the only cost effective way to store electricity cheap(ish) and efficiently is to use hydro electric power stations.

All power generation has it's downsides, e.g. conventional coal and nuclear stations have long lead times to power up and down, so responding to changes in demand is not possible. In the UK we have coal stations on 'spinning reserve' i.e. burning coal but not generating power as it isn't needed! And nuclear it makes little difference if you're running at full speed or not.

Wind and wave and to a point tidal, has the opposite issue that it only gives you power intermittantly. Which is why you need hydro in there too.

Currently the only solution which gives you cheap power station construction costs, an ability to quickly adjust for demand is gas. However most of that gas comes from Russia and could be cut off at any moment, and that isn't going to last forever in any case.

[Retro Formula 1]

Managed to find an interesting artical with pretty pictures.

http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/pollution-home/radiation/natural_radioactivity.htm

Also, I found this lovely little quote but cannot substantiate the source.



While it is true that there is a slight increase in radiation does due to living close to a nuclear power plant, typically on the order of 0.01 mrem a year (insignificant), the average dose from living near a coal fired power plant is three times as high! This is due to the release of uranium/etc naturally mixed in with the coal.

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/safe_radiation.html

[schmenke]

So are you the first one to sign up for not being able to turn on a light at night when the wind isn't blowing? Tung only half in cheek.

I’m not saying that at all.
What I am trying to say is that energy output from alternate sources such as wind, solar and tidal are grossly over estimated, not to mention have practical limitations as pointed out by Mark. I for one do not want my tax dollar invested in exploring these as long-term options to replace conventional energy production. Specifically, living in Canada where we need a reliable and consistent source to hear our homes 9 months out of the year!

I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that the only way to ensure global energy sources for the future is to accept serious lifestyle changes and consume less now. If we don’t want to do accept this then there are only two viable options:

1. Start to exploit the vast reserves of petroleum resources in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic and South America (I recently read one report that estimated the oil reserves in the rain forest region alone is close to 1 trillion barrels); or,
2. Go nuclear.

[chuck34]

I’m not saying that at all.
What I am trying to say is that energy output from alternate sources such as wind, solar and tidal are grossly over estimated, not to mention have practical limitations as pointed out by Mark. I for one do not want my tax dollar invested in exploring these as long-term options to replace conventional energy production. Specifically, living in Canada where we need a reliable and consistent source to hear our homes 9 months out of the year!

I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that the only way to ensure global energy sources for the future is to accept serious lifestyle changes and consume less now. If we don’t want to do accept this then there are only two viable options:

1. Start to exploit the vast reserves of petroleum resources in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic and South America (I recently read one report that estimated the oil reserves in the rain forest region alone is close to 1 trillion barrels); or,
2. Go nuclear.

I guess from where I'm sitting, the state of physics/engineering being what they are, barring some future technical enhancement that I am unaware of right now, the only viable option is a combination of your #1 and #2. We need to exploit our resources in the short term while we ramp up our nuclear capability.

Consuming less now (or at any time in the future), and/or radically changing our lifestyles are not viable options. Like I said, who is going to be the first one to sign up for not having their lights come on at night when the wind isn't blowing? Do you know anyone that would sign on for that?

[schmenke]

...Consuming less now (or at any time in the future), and/or radically changing our lifestyles are not viable options. ...

Yes they are. Much of our current energy demands are for luxuries that most of the rest of the world goes without. Like I mentioned, transportation consumes much of our natural resources. If we can cut back on that we are well on our way to a sustainable future.

The lights are the least of our worries.

[chuck34]

Yes they are. Much of our current energy demands are for luxuries that most of the rest of the world goes without. Like I mentioned, transportation consumes much of our natural resources. If we can cut back on that we are well on our way to a sustainable future.

The lights are the least of our worries.

There was a time when the West's high standard of living was something people strived for. Apparently now we are supposed to strive for the low standard of living the rest of the world "enjoys"? :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

There was a time when the West's high standard of living was something people strived for. Apparently now we are supposed to strive for the low standard of living the rest of the world "enjoys"? :rolleyes: Obama wants to live like his brother who he ignores.

[Bob Riebe]

My point is that we are consuming a non-renewable energy resource at an exponential rate.
Coal is by far the dirtiest source of energy and likely the highest contributor to deaths and human health issues.



When figures for cost per kilowatt-hour include the disposal and maintenance of spend rods, nuclear is still comparable with fossil fuel energy production.



:?: Please re-read my post :)


A few more facts to put the world’s energy demands in context:

The USA, with 10% of the world’s population consumes approximately 25% of the world’s oil.
Approximately 30% of which is used to fuel passenger vehicles.

Sadly North Americans are fixated on the use of the passenger vehicle as their primary means of transportation.

If North Americans could reduce the numbers of vehicles on the road during weekday rush hour periods by half, the world’s energy problems would be solved. What is required during rush hours is a means of transporting masses of people from their homes to either a downtown core, or central work district. The passenger vehicle is the most inefficient mode of mass transportation to accomplish this. Next time you’re stuck in rush hour traffic, look around you and count the number of vehicles in which there is more than one person, yet the vehicle is easily capable of transporting 4 :mark: .

A major step to solving the world’s energy problem is that we (specifically western countries) must drastically consume fewer resources. To do that requires radical lifestyle changes. Until we acknowledge that, we can forget about alternate fuel sources such as solar or wind.You must live in a metropolitan area, as do the majority of politicians and all ranking Democrats.
other wise you would not make that silly statement about North Americans relying on passenger vehicles.

The people who like their life styles is in the majority; the majority of people who think others should change are either politicians or educators who live off of the publics money.

I think tar and feathering should be made legal.

[BDunnell]

There was a time when the West's high standard of living was something people strived for. Apparently now we are supposed to strive for the low standard of living the rest of the world "enjoys"? :rolleyes:

So there is no happy medium somewhere in between?

[Bob Riebe]

Why oh why, have the Democrats not suggested fueling power plants with their favorite- ethanol?

After all The Obama was just in Brazil kissing their buttocks, and the Brazilians have plenty of ethanol.

[chuck34]

So there is no happy medium somewhere in between?

Actually, no. Not from my perspective. I would like for society to progress forward, not take steps back.

What are you willing to give up?

[chuck34]

Why oh why, have the Democrats not suggested fueling power plants with their favorite- ethanol?

After all The Obama was just in Brazil kissing their buttocks, and the Brazilians have plenty of ethanol.

Ethanol? We don't need no stinking Ethanol.

http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/petrobras-first-to-use-fpso-in-u-s-gulf-of-mexico/

[Bob Riebe]

Ethanol? We don't need no stinking Ethanol.

http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/petrobras-first-to-use-fpso-in-u-s-gulf-of-mexico/ Tell that to the Democrats, thousands of farmers who raise animals would applaud you.

[chuck34]

Tell that to the Democrats, thousands of farmers who raise animals would applaud you.

Did you actually read my link? It has more to do with Obama's trip than any animal farmer I know.

Although I do agree with you, and I'm not an animal farmer, but I do like to eat the ocasional animal now and then.

[schmenke]

Actually, no. Not from my perspective. I would like for society to progress forward, not take steps back....

From my perspective sustainability is progressing forward.

[Bob Riebe]

From my perspective sustainability is progressing forward.
I do believe "sustainability" is related to the number of people on the face of the earth.
When it comes to land for people and land for food who do you kill?

[BDunnell]

Actually, no. Not from my perspective. I would like for society to progress forward, not take steps back.

What are you willing to give up?

I have already more or less given up flying unless I can help it, admittedly in part because I enjoy travelling by rail immensely, but also for environmental reasons.

And why does progressing forward automatically mean more energy consumption? I don't think it does at all. There is some very exciting technological progress being made in terms of saving energy.

[chuck34]

I have already more or less given up flying unless I can help it, admittedly in part because I enjoy travelling by rail immensely, but also for environmental reasons.

And why does progressing forward automatically mean more energy consumption? I don't think it does at all. There is some very exciting technological progress being made in terms of saving energy.

If you can make technological progress to save engergy, but I still get to do the things I want to do, when I want to do them ... I'm all for it.

And for you to say that you've "given up" flying but only because you enjoy rail more is a bit silly, honestly. You haven't given up anything, you are enjoying one form of transportation over another. What if I like flying more, should I be forced to give it up? What if I like driving my car, just for the hell of it, are you going to tell me I can't now? What if I just want to be able to turn a light on because it's dark out? Are you the one who decides what I can and can not do now? Why? On who's authority?

Another point, progressing forward pretty much does automatically mean more energy consumption. Take the most extreme example, someone living in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. How do you propose to improve that person's quality of life without that person consuming more energy? A less extreme example, I want to enhance my quality of life this evening by watching a movie. How do I do that without consuming energy?

[anthonyvop]

So there is no happy medium somewhere in between?


Sure......You go live in a cave and I will continue to improve my lifestyle. There. Happy?

[BDunnell]

And for you to say that you've "given up" flying but only because you enjoy rail more is a bit silly, honestly. You haven't given up anything, you are enjoying one form of transportation over another. What if I like flying more, should I be forced to give it up? What if I like driving my car, just for the hell of it, are you going to tell me I can't now? What if I just want to be able to turn a light on because it's dark out? Are you the one who decides what I can and can not do now? Why? On who's authority?

Re-read what I wrote. I said that enjoyment is a part of it, but that the environmental impact of my travel is another impact. If you're suggesting I'm lying about the latter aspect, I ask you to take it back. And where have I suggested that you should change your behaviour? Again, re-read what I said. The answer is nowhere. Stop putting words into my mouth.



Another point, progressing forward pretty much does automatically mean more energy consumption. Take the most extreme example, someone living in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. How do you propose to improve that person's quality of life without that person consuming more energy?

One would hope that, in the future, they may be able to purchase items that both enhance the quality of their life while consuming less energy than do those items now. That, in my book, would be progress.

[BDunnell]

Sure......You go live in a cave and I will continue to improve my lifestyle. There. Happy?

I'd have to turf you out of the cave first, judging by your views on most subjects.

[chuck34]

Re-read what I wrote. I said that enjoyment is a part of it, but that the environmental impact of my travel is another impact. If you're suggesting I'm lying about the latter aspect, I ask you to take it back. And where have I suggested that you should change your behaviour? Again, re-read what I said. The answer is nowhere. Stop putting words into my mouth.

So enjoyment is part of it, as well as energy. Fine, the point was/is that YOU made that choice. No one made it for you. Perhaps you have not said that I should change my behaviour. But many in the "green" movement are saying just that, we MUST change our ways. And they are more than willing to force us, through schemes like Cap and Trade, taxes, excessive regulations, and the like.


One would hope that, in the future, they may be able to purchase items that both enhance the quality of their life while consuming less energy than do those items now. That, in my book, would be progress.

Yes I hope that they are able to get the things they need at less energy than it takes today. But they will still be consuming more energy than they are today. In order for someone to have clean water, adaquate shelter, access to jobs and all the rest that we would consider "standard", one MUST consume some form of energy. There is just no way around that.

[BDunnell]

So enjoyment is part of it, as well as energy. Fine, the point was/is that YOU made that choice. No one made it for you. Perhaps you have not said that I should change my behaviour. But many in the "green" movement are saying just that, we MUST change our ways. And they are more than willing to force us, through schemes like Cap and Trade, taxes, excessive regulations, and the like.

There's no 'perhaps' about it. I didn't say it. Like I said, you should stop putting words into my mouth.

[Malbec]

Tell that to the Democrats, thousands of farmers who raise animals would applaud you.

How is that different to Bush who pushed for mandatory bioethanol content in US petrol to rise substantially?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/bush_ethanol/index.htm

Your obsession with railing against anyone with power is really revealing. Spoken to your father about that?

[Bob Riebe]

How is that different to Bush who pushed for mandatory bioethanol content in US petrol to rise substantially?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/bush_ethanol/index.htm

Your obsession with railing against anyone with power is really revealing. Spoken to your father about that?
Bush was a hypocrite and moron on energy matters, and more than a few others.

So is your bowing before it.
-------------------------
My father is dead but I respected my elders, especially my father, fully, which is more than todays snot-faced punks are expected to do, much less taught.

[BDunnell]

How is that different to Bush who pushed for mandatory bioethanol content in US petrol to rise substantially?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/bush_ethanol/index.htm

Your obsession with railing against anyone with power is really revealing. Spoken to your father about that?

Quite apart from that, I was wondering whether the individual to whom you refer has ever made a positive post about anything, containing no criticism of anyone or anything.

[Malbec]

So is your bowing before it.

Explain.

[Malbec]

Quite apart from that, I was wondering whether the individual to whom you refer has ever made a positive post about anything, containing no criticism of anyone or anything.

He clearly has serious issues which are better explored by himself off-forum. While he is an irritant I feel more pity rather than anything else towards him.

[nigelred5]

I guess from where I'm sitting, the state of physics/engineering being what they are, barring some future technical enhancement that I am unaware of right now, the only viable option is a combination of your #1 and #2. We need to exploit our resources in the short term while we ramp up our nuclear capability.

Consuming less now (or at any time in the future), and/or radically changing our lifestyles are not viable options. Like I said, who is going to be the first one to sign up for not having their lights come on at night when the wind isn't blowing? Do you know anyone that would sign on for that?

Well, there's plenty of Amish around me that have chosen that lifestyle, but... well, I'll pass thanks. I guess I can't burn a candle, or an oil lamp, or a fire in my fireplace. I suppose we can start handing out those crank flaslights to everyone.

[Tazio]

Well, there's plenty of Amish around me that have chosen that lifestyle, but... well, I'll pass thanks. I guess I can't burn a candle, or an oil lamp, or a fire in my fireplace. I suppose we can start handing out those crank flaslights to everyone. I support this position vigorously:

"I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago."
Edgar Allan Poe AD 1841

[Bob Riebe]

Explain.You explain yours and I will think about explaining the obvious.

[Bob Riebe]

Quite apart from that, I was wondering whether the individual to whom you refer has ever made a positive post about anything, containing no criticism of anyone or anything.He probably wonders the same about your posts that go off the thread topic to instead attack an individual.
Oh well que sera-sera.

[Bob Riebe]

He clearly has serious issues which are better explored by himself off-forum. While he is an irritant I feel more pity rather than anything else towards him.I would bet he feels the same about your cretinous adolescent posts.
----------------
In a way I admire the Amish, but when you go the areas where they have goods for sale, they know how charge top dollar.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It will go away once we realize how dangerous and damaging it is to us and our planet.

I'm no expert but I go with what I am seeing right now and with what I am learning about nuclear waste now that it is a 'hot" and "radioactive" topic.

No nukes damit!


:s mokin:

I could READ 5 pages of this topic, but this sums up what supporters of nuclear power deal with. The hell with facts (no one in North America's 100 plus reactors) has been hurt, killed or exposed to a deadly dose of anything in all the years of nuclear power. 3 mile Island was the only incident really of note, and no appreciable damage was done to the environment at all. Meanwhile, the same genius that thinks nukes are bad has been beating my head in for 5 years on this green house gas emissions stuff. Well...we can have safe clean power that doesn't cause the problem you keep telling will kill us all, or you can have no nukes and more GWG.

I have YET to see anyone of these green fellows plug into a tree and get power...

[rah]

No Nukes. It does not make economic sense. Plenty of other options out there that are safer, greener and more self reliant. Well for my country anyway.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have already more or less given up flying unless I can help it, admittedly in part because I enjoy travelling by rail immensely, but also for environmental reasons.

And why does progressing forward automatically mean more energy consumption? I don't think it does at all. There is some very exciting technological progress being made in terms of saving energy.

An interesting take Ben. See, though, you are seeing things through the European prism. Taking a train to get anywhere in North America isn't really practical if you start going any real distance. It would be nice if AMTRAK and VIA here in Canada had a train like the TGV, but the business model isn't being made to construct the lines here. We fly or drive, and we tend to think of the train 3rd. It just isn't really doable when you have nations stretching 4 to 7 time zones....

As for progress being made by less energy consumption; I am going to say right now technology is the way we have our cake and eat it too.

I am all for green energy, I am all for nuclear energy and I am all for developing Fusion, Hydrogen and Solar. Wind to me is a bird Cuisnart and a toy. I think over time, we will develop all this stuff. And I bet when the dust settles on all the debate, we wont be giving up our cars or our freedoms.

The modern car has given the common man freedom. Freedom to travel, to associate with whom he pleases on his trip to work. The freedom to change plans, and the freedom to just hop in and go for relatively affordable prices. I can drive my own car 500 miles a lot cheaper than I can fly or take a train and that includes the payment of it and gas and insurance. To hear people say, well we use too many resources, we must stop, and cars have to go ignores the fact that cars are the economic product that pretty much drive the Western economy. How you fill that void with computers and Ipods I don't know because neither has gotten me to work. What is more, a truck (one like I now again drive) has to bring all these products. The infrastructure to move all this product is the same one the cars travel on.

No...our energy issues are two fold. ONE, petroleum is the product that drives the economy and our transportation and some of our electricity needs, and TWO, Electrical products are causing a greater demand for more power. Add in a growing population and this fetish we are starting to have for electric cars and scooters, and you can make things as energy efficient as you want (appliances that use less power? Go for it!) but the numbers are still causing demand for power.

It all comes back to short term and long term solutions. In the short term, Gas and Coal, plus Nuclear will be the way most of the west should go. This fear of the nuclear powerplant in Europe is I predict going to be shoved aside when the hard realities of this ramp in demand for power. So the mid to long term will be probably more nuclear, and newer and safer designs that are more efficient. IN the long term? I still think Fusion will get here, but likely not in what is my life time.

The world gets to Fusion, well, it is a different world then isn't it?

No...I think wanting to keep what we have as a society, and encouraging the rest of the world to develop an economic model and democratic model similar to the west is the best we can hope for. The wasted human capacity that is tired up in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and the grinding poverty of Africa and parts of South American and Asia must be addressed, but it wont be addressed by government subsidies and people sitting around in Brussels, Geneva or New York all ordering Caviar as they discuss it. It will be powered by petroleum and likely nuclear, and the economic systems that have helped us can help them if a handle is gotten on the corruption.

We can live in a better world, and nuclear power is the bridge energy wise to the future.....but too many people are scared of the hard facts, and choose to use emotional fears.

[Malbec]

I would bet he feels the same about your cretinous adolescent posts.


I find it interesting that I have, in all my posts to you, tried to be courteous and polite.

Yet you call my posts cretinous and adolescent without being able to address any of them directly. You also try to call me a hypocrite and moron by association again without having the guts to call me that directly.

Try and gain some self-confidence and tackle what you don't like about my posts without making cowardly snide comments. Apart from your issue with authority the only other thing thats clear about your posts is that you are never able to have the courage to state your case and stick with it, preferring to descend to insults.

[Retro Formula 1]

I find it interesting that I have, in all my posts to you, tried to be courteous and polite.

Yet you call my posts cretinous and adolescent without being able to address any of them directly. You also try to call me a hypocrite and moron by association again without having the guts to call me that directly.

Try and gain some self-confidence and tackle what you don't like about my posts without making cowardly snide comments. Apart from your issue with authority the only other thing thats clear about your posts is that you are never able to have the courage to state your case and stick with it, preferring to descend to insults.

If you find a poster is offering no benefit to the forum and is behaving in an unpleasant manner which detracts from enjoying the forum, then do what I did. Since I have put Bob on my ignore list, I find the "IQ" of the forum has gone up slightly and my enjoyment of it.

I really enjoy debating on here and understanding other peoples views but when there is no value, effort or originality from a member whatsoever, it's just not worth it.

[Mark]

Tell that to the Democrats, thousands of farmers who raise animals would applaud you.


Will you give up already, every single post of yours is Democrats this Obama that, ok, we get it, now shutupayerface!

[Dave B]

If Obama walked on water, Bob would say he can't swim.

[markabilly]

Yeah, all this concern is so unwarranted about nuke plants.

So what?

The stupid FDA is banning the import of certain food items:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215049/ns/health-food_safety/?gt1=43001


The tap water in Tokyo is now been deemed unsafe for drinking for infants, something about twice as much radioactivity as should be permitted................



The officials told reporters that a water treatment center in downtown Tokyo that supplies much of the city's tap water found that some water contained 210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131.
They said the limit for consumption of iodine 131 for infants is 100 becquerels per liter. They recommended that babies not be given tap water, although they said the water is not an immediate health risk for adults.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206728/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

no big deal.

Just babies. All this fussing over nothing is just upsetting people anyway

Sorry to have interrupted Dunnel and crew in their bashing of Riebe, his father, Bush and his father, and american in general, and on and on...........you may now continue....

[schmenke]

Bush was a hypocrite and moron on energy matters....

Indeed.
The Bush administration pushed for that energy bill in exchange for support from the U.S. corn farmers.
Sugar cane-based ethanol can be produced and imported into the U.S. from Brazil far more cheaply than distilling it locally from corn. Brazil has a surplus of sugar cane and the ethanol yield from sugar cane distillation is higher than from corn.
At about the same time as that bill was proposed, the U.S. levied import duties on sugar cane and ethanol products from Brazil :mark: .

[Bob Riebe]

I find it interesting that I have, in all my posts to you, tried to be courteous and polite.

Yet you call my posts cretinous and adolescent without being able to address any of them directly. You also try to call me a hypocrite and moron by association again without having the guts to call me that directly.

Try and gain some self-confidence and tackle what you don't like about my posts without making cowardly snide comments. Apart from your issue with authority the only other thing thats clear about your posts is that you are never able to have the courage to state your case and stick with it, preferring to descend to insults.Show me the thread where my posts directed at others comments I was the original initiator and not responding because the other ignored the post topic to have a fit and attack me about my method of writing.

I find ignoring a thread topic to go off on a fit about the style used by other writers to be exactly as wrote it. Tony gets the same attacks I and others do.
I will respond in kind, which is a bit of a failing on my part.

It is amazing that attacking other posters is supposed to be a violation yet it seems to be ignored to the point that one of the administrators seems to be infatuated with Dem. political views to the point that he has joined in.

Trashing conservatives by some continually does not get a response from him.

Oh well, as I said, que sera-sera.

[Bob Riebe]

If Obama walked on water, Bob would say he can't swim.This has what to do with the thread topic?

[Tazio]

Will you give up already, every single post of yours is Democrats this Obama that, ok, we get it, now shutupayerface!
I'm reporting this post!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TZ_k8wTjsM

[airshifter]

Indeed.
The Bush administration pushed for that energy bill in exchange for support from the U.S. corn farmers.
Sugar cane-based ethanol can be produced and imported into the U.S. from Brazil far more cheaply than distilling it locally from corn. Brazil has a surplus of sugar cane and the ethanol yield from sugar cane distillation is higher than from corn.
At about the same time as that bill was proposed, the U.S. levied import duties on sugar cane and ethanol products from Brazil :mark: .

Actually the initiatives during the Bush years pushed development of quite a few technologies, including research into ethanol production in the US by means other than corn. Sure you can import from Brazil or anyone else, but you are then once again at the mercy of a market not under the control of the country in need. Something that can be sustained within the country of need not only helps when market swings occur, but would save the cost of shipping all the goods.

Among other things the Bush admin pushed energy credits down much farther in the normal persons life, with credits for things the normal consumer could afford. Heating and cooling products, insulation, windows, etc could be eligible for tax credits if the energy efficient approved products were purchased.

[Mark]

The holy grail is really biomass product that can be produced on a very large scale and refined into fuel, but does not impinge on areas of land we currently grow food crops on.

[Malbec]

Show me the thread where my posts directed at others comments I was the original initiator and not responding because the other ignored the post topic to have a fit and attack me about my method of writing.

I find ignoring a thread topic to go off on a fit about the style used by other writers to be exactly as wrote it. Tony gets the same attacks I and others do.
I will respond in kind, which is a bit of a failing on my part.

It is amazing that attacking other posters is supposed to be a violation yet it seems to be ignored to the point that one of the administrators seems to be infatuated with Dem. political views to the point that he has joined in.

Trashing conservatives by some continually does not get a response from him.

Oh well, as I said, que sera-sera.

What the hell has all this got to do with your direct insults at me?

[Malbec]

If you find a poster is offering no benefit to the forum and is behaving in an unpleasant manner which detracts from enjoying the forum, then do what I did. Since I have put Bob on my ignore list, I find the "IQ" of the forum has gone up slightly and my enjoyment of it.

I really enjoy debating on here and understanding other peoples views but when there is no value, effort or originality from a member whatsoever, it's just not worth it.

I think I'll be taking your advice

[Mark]

It is amazing that attacking other posters is supposed to be a violation yet it seems to be ignored to the point that one of the administrators seems to be infatuated with Dem. political views to the point that he has joined in.


That there is my point really. I personally don't really know or really care what the views are of the 'Dems' or any other political party is in the USA. It's having views rammed down my throat I have a problem with.

[chuck34]

Yeah, all this concern is so unwarranted about nuke plants.

So what?

The stupid FDA is banning the import of certain food items:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215049/ns/health-food_safety/?gt1=43001


The tap water in Tokyo is now been deemed unsafe for drinking for infants, something about twice as much radioactivity as should be permitted................


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206728/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

no big deal.

Just babies. All this fussing over nothing is just upsetting people anyway

Sorry to have interrupted Dunnel and crew in their bashing of Riebe, his father, Bush and his father, and american in general, and on and on...........you may now continue....

Back down now.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/24/japan.nuclear.disaster/index.html?hpt=C1

"Erring on the side of caution for the extreme degree for children makes good sense," Cox said. For adults, "as far as the immediate health risk, something that would make people sick, I don't think that would come close to it."

And on Thursday, Japan's leading obstetrics and gynecological organization said that pregnant and nursing women should continue to drink tap water -- even if the levels of radioactive iodine rise up to 500 becquerels. Over 280 days, the length of a typical pregnancy, that intake of radioactive iodine would still not be considered overly harmful, according to the group.

The society contends, in a news release, that the harm from not drinking water and dehydrating is far greater for mothers than consuming tap water at their current levels.

[nigelred5]

The holy grail is really biomass product that can be produced on a very large scale and refined into fuel, but does not impinge on areas of land we currently grow food crops on.

Such as algae production taking place in hothouses located in the middle of a desert?

http://www.desertsweetbiofuels.com/

[race aficionado]

Being open for other options is something that many of us can agree upon.
for example this:

STILL NUCLEAR POWER, BUT THE REACTOR IS 93 MILLION MILES AWAY

Germany’s solar panels produce more power than Japan’s entire Fukushima complex
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-22-germanys-solar-panels-produce-more-power-than-japans-entire-fuku
:s mokin:

[Mark]

An entire country vs a single nuclear plant? I don't think that's the solution just yet.

[nigelred5]

Back down now.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/24/japan.nuclear.disaster/index.html?hpt=C1

I'd say if any society knows the long term effects of radiation exposure on the population, it's Japan. Whether they are open and truly honest about the effects of exposure are a different matter.

[Mark]

Such as algae production taking place in hothouses located in the middle of a desert?

http://www.desertsweetbiofuels.com/

Exactly that type of thing, yes!

[Retro Formula 1]

Being open for other options is something that many of us can agree upon.
for example this:

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-22-germanys-solar-panels-produce-more-power-than-japans-entire-fuku
:s mokin:

Race

Please read the responses to the Blog you posted. It's claims are ridiculed and the Author fails in his defence.

I am fully behind renewables but they are something that can and should suppliment Nuclear. It's folly to think otherwise.

This response sums it up for me:



<LI sizset="128" sizcache="54">DrAlessandro (http://www.grist.org/member/253382) 253382 <LI class=comment-datetime>22 Mar 2011 3:49pm 1300834183 1300852183
Unfortunately, this is erroneous. Solar PV at absolute maximum, with 100% efficient cells, can generate only 3MW/acre. A standard nuclear (LWR) plant generates 50 times that, and does it 24/7. Solar nets about 1/4 its specified max per day. And, weather extremely impacts solar output, which is why Germany, even covering all its farm land, can't rely on solar's present 1/1000 of nuclear's output. Then, there's the absurd land sacrifice for massed PV arrays.

There are 3 pieces of an overall energy solution: efficiency (we waste >50% of generation today); local solar (distributed generation on existing structures); and safe nuclear power (developed 40 years ago by US ORNL and allowed to languish). The Chinese are now taking all our work and running with it (thank goodness they're not dummies too)...

http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/#comments

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

Anyone interested in why the Chinese are interested...
http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd and http://tinyurl.com/yb2qgex

For an interesting read of how we've indeed been nuclear dummies for decades...
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/CivilianNuclearPower.pdf and http://tinyurl.com/ye6leml

We currently consume energy worldwide at the rate of what 50,000 Olympians can generate working 24/7 as hard as they can, per capita. Yes, each of us has 50,000 energy-producing slaves. And, we don't feed them (OMG, what if we had to?). So we should then grasp how foolish we've been in not addressing energy waste as well as safe generation. Burning 3 cubic miles of oil each year is something our scientists knew was unsustainable before most of us here were born. And, before oil, Arrhenius warned in 1896 & 1905 that burning coal would be problematic around 3000AD (despite being a Nobellist & the father of industrial chemistry, he didn't know we'd be even more addicted to oil).

We're so far behind, hundreds of millions around the world will suffer for our ignorance over the next decades. Time to get with it. Efficiency, solar PV on local structures, plus safe nuclear power, solve the problem -- too late for millions, but as the old country saying goes: "There's no substitute for human stupidity". I also like that we create our own problems with our "opposable thumbs and obdurate minds". Best of all is Walt Kelley's Pogo: "I've seen the enemy and he is us".

Feel free to call, if only for your kids & grandkids.
--
Dr. A Cannara
650-400-3071


Give him a bell and perhaps he will open your eyes. The big problem is Carbons, not Plutonium.

[race aficionado]

Race

Please read the responses to the Blog you posted. It's claims are ridiculed and the Author fails in his defence.

I am fully behind renewables but they are something that can and should suppliment Nuclear. It's folly to think otherwise.

This response sums it up for me:
Give him a bell and perhaps he will open your eyes. The big problem is Carbons, not Plutonium.

I'm a doomed quoter! I'm doooooomed!!!!! ;)

:s mokin:

[SGWilko]

Thorium.

Not possible to have an uncontrollable chain reaction thus no chance of China Syndrome.

Why was it poo poo'd? Because it did not create Plutonium as a by-product and thus was of no use to the weapons manufacturers who's wallets are the deepest.

Also;

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

“There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord. The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.”

[Retro Formula 1]

I'm a doomed quoter! I'm doooooomed!!!!! ;)

:s mokin:

Naw, not doomed. The more articles are discussed, the clearer things become :)

Who knows, in 10 years, or 50, we might be moaning about why we need wind farms when there are much better sustainable means.

Fingers crossed.

[rah]

Exactly that type of thing, yes!
Algae Based fules are coming a long way. I know they can make petrol, diesel and jet fuel already. The best part is, besides production, all the infrastructure is already there.

Another guy in aus was using algae in large plastic bags to produce hydrogen. Several acres will produce enough for a small town. Still early stages though.

[Daniel]

Being open for other options is something that many of us can agree upon.
for example this:

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-22-germanys-solar-panels-produce-more-power-than-japans-entire-fuku
:s mokin:

What about when it's dark?

[schmenke]

What about when it's dark?

Snuggle :p :

[race aficionado]

What about when it's dark?

You turn on the lights. Duh!!!
:o

. . . or snuggle if convenient.

[Daniel]

You turn on the lights. Duh!!!
:o

. . . or snuggle if convenient.

Which are powered by? I'm all for renewables, I like hydro, I like solar and I like wind power, but you also need something which can operate at full capacity 24/7 no matter how cold, dark, windy, windless or dry the weather is. Nuclear power in conjunction with renewables is the way forward.

[race aficionado]

Which are powered by? I'm all for renewables, I like hydro, I like solar and I like wind power, but you also need something which can operate at full capacity 24/7 no matter how cold, dark, windy, windless or dry the weather is. Nuclear power in conjunction with renewables is the way forward.


Okay.
:)

[Daniel]

Okay.
:)

What is your alternative?

[race aficionado]

What is your alternative?

I'm sure Steve Jobs and his team will come up with something soon . . . . :D

Daniel, I am one, as you now well know, that is totally against Nuclear power.

What am I for? Well . . . . for starters, something that is not nuclear.

Basically I am against anything that can kill me when I am not asking for trouble - for example, putting my fork into an electric socket will fry me for sure but if left alone, it will do the job. What produces that electricity that is non nuclear? My choice is whatever won't pollute our planet like nuclear and fossil fuels that emit crap in the air that can be damaging to any living being.

Sorry my answer is not specific (other than the iEnergy one) but I only know what I know.

So there.
:s mokin:

[Mark]

Those ideals are just that an ideal. If you take out all methods of electricity generation which doesn't involve fossil fuels or nuclear that leaves you with very little.

[Daniel]

I'm sure Steve Jobs and his team will come up with something soon . . . . :D

Daniel, I am one, as you now well know, that is totally against Nuclear power.

What am I for? Well . . . . for starters, something that is not nuclear.

Basically I am against anything that can kill me when I am not asking for trouble - for example, putting my fork into an electric socket will fry me for sure but if left alone, it will do the job. What produces that electricity that is non nuclear? My choice is whatever won't pollute our planet like fossil fuels that emit crap in the air that can be damaging to any living being.

Sorry my answer is not specific (other than the iEnergy one) but I only know what I know.

So there.
:s mokin:

But neither my PC or your Mac will run on good intentions or a nice idea. Nuclear is the least polluting technology at the moment which is capable or running 24/7 and is based on something which in relative terms isn't running out anytime soon.

My parents have a solar hot water unit on their roof which is fantastic, in summer you have blisteringly hot water and even in winter in Australia you do get some hot water out of it in the winter but it will need to be boosted by electricity during winter. This sort of technology is fantastic but if you had to rely on pure solar energy for hot water or energy then you'd be without hot water or electricity when you probably need it the most.

I'm all for wind power as well, we have wind turbines off the coast here and also inland too, I think they're very beautiful bits of technology but if we relied on them for energy 24/7 we'd be screwed.....

Good intentions don't light or heat houses sadly.

[rah]

What about solar thermal? What about some of the new ways of producing hydrogen? What about geothermal or wave / tide power. While I do not like nuke power and believe it has no place is aus, it does have its place. But it is not the only solution.

[markabilly]

Thorium.

Not possible to have an uncontrollable chain reaction thus no chance of China Syndrome.

Why was it poo poo'd? Because it did not create Plutonium as a by-product and thus was of no use to the weapons manufacturers who's wallets are the deepest.

Also;

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

“There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord. The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.”


Finally after years of reading posts in this forum , i find something worth knowing, besides the jokes in the old joke thread.

thanks

[Bob Riebe]

What about solar thermal? What about some of the new ways of producing hydrogen? What about geothermal or wave / tide power. While I do not like nuke power and believe it has no place is aus, it does have its place. But it is not the only solution.Solution to what?

[Mark]

Solution to meeting the energy demands of the world, presumably?!

[markabilly]

meanwhile back in japan.......



Radiation spreads to Japan's soil, seawater

Experts warned that Japan faced a long fight to contain the world's most dangerous atomic crisis in 25 years.
"This is far beyond what one nation can handle — it needs to be bumped up to the U.N. Security Council," said Najmedin Meshkati, of the University of Southern California. "In my humble opinion, this is more important than the Libya no-fly zone."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42301452/ns/world_news-asiapacific

[Mark]

What does the UN have to do with it? You think the Japanese government isn't already pouring all the possible resources and expertise possible into it? :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

What does the UN have to do with it? You think the Japanese government isn't already pouring all the possible resources and expertise possible into it? :rolleyes:

he may have a point, that maybe more needs to be done with more resources.

After all, Japan has other issues of an emergency nature, such that even if there were no radiation leaks, the overwhelming nature of the results of this earthquake elsewhere through out the country would still be there.

[Mark]

I doubt the problem is a lack of resources here. Sure, Japan needs help and a lot of it, but in clearing up the mess of the earthquake, extra people fussing over the nuclear situation would only get in the way. What's needed is diggers and earth movers and people with shovels.

[SGWilko]

Which are powered by? I'm all for renewables, I like hydro, I like solar and I like wind power, but you also need something which can operate at full capacity 24/7 no matter how cold, dark, windy, windless or dry the weather is. Nuclear power in conjunction with renewables is the way forward.

If every home had;

solar panels for heat and electricity production, plus a supplemental wind turbine, you'd only need a few power plants to make up for the regional differences in weather.........

[SGWilko]

What does the UN have to do with it? You think the Japanese government isn't already pouring all the possible resources and expertise possible into it? :rolleyes:

I think the Japanese government, in the pockets of the power industry for quite some years (along with the Japanese press I might add) is being a little economical with the truth.

Are we expected to believe that a nuclear plant, 40+ years old, survives an unprecedented 8.9 quake which it was never designed to cope with, has it's backup systems anhialated by an unprecedented etc Tsunami, is left to cook on full micro power for a few hours, and not suffer multiple core meltdowns?

Plus, there is clear reason to suspect the used rods pools are overloaded beyond safe limits....

Tepco are proven liars, and that is being nice about them.......

[markabilly]

Tepco and its past and current roles has largely been ignored in these discussions.
When people think of these power plants, it is natural to think of them as part of the government, when it in fact, many plants are not. Indee, they are simply subject to 'tight regulation" whatever that is.

[Daniel]

If every home had;

solar panels for heat and electricity production, plus a supplemental wind turbine, you'd only need a few power plants to make up for the regional differences in weather.........

I'm sorry, but in the UK that's a pipedream. In the UK on short days when energy use will be high there will be no power from solar at all during the evenings and even in the summer solar isn't going to give that much power in the UK. For solar you need somewhere which is sunny for a good part of the year and with generally clear skies. Wind turbines are a good idea but by nature the wind is unpredictable and you'd still need reliable power for the times when it's not windy.

I love renewable energy and in the right place it's great. If we were ever building a new house I'd certainly look at having a heat pump installation, I think it's a really good idea :up:

[Malbec]

If every home had;

solar panels for heat and electricity production, plus a supplemental wind turbine, you'd only need a few power plants to make up for the regional differences in weather.........

Japan already had one of the highest uptakes of domestic solar power in the world, and relies a lot on hydroelectric power as part of its policy to not rely on imported energy. They still needed nuclear and gas powered power stations to 'top up' power. If you have a manufacturing industrial base (which admittedly Britain doesn't have much of any more) solar power is unfortunately not sufficient, especially since most industrial nations do not lie on the equator.

[Malbec]

I think the Japanese government, in the pockets of the power industry for quite some years (along with the Japanese press I might add) is being a little economical with the truth.

Are we expected to believe that a nuclear plant, 40+ years old, survives an unprecedented 8.9 quake which it was never designed to cope with, has it's backup systems anhialated by an unprecedented etc Tsunami, is left to cook on full micro power for a few hours, and not suffer multiple core meltdowns?

Plus, there is clear reason to suspect the used rods pools are overloaded beyond safe limits....

Tepco are proven liars, and that is being nice about them.......

TEPCO does indeed have a chequered past. My feeling is that they have skimped on some safety checks as well as taking the General Electric nuclear reactors beyond their projected lifetimes. I also feel that their response early on in the crisis was slow or delayed and cost-savings were almost certainly a large factor.

However their handling once the magnitude of the crisis became clear has been pretty good and certainly they cannot be accused of being opaque with data. Few if any crises have had such well documented press updates as this one. Also the workers currently sorting out the mess cannot be faulted except perhaps for mistakes induced by fatigue and fear. I suspect that in similar conditions I wouldn't be able to do any better though.

Haig once commented about the British army that it was a case of lions being lead by donkeys. I feel that description wouldn't be inaccurate when used to describe the Japanese nuclear power industry either.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Interesting thread. I started it wanting to see a good discussion and see where everyone sat on Nuclear power.

I find it hilarious the Germans, Austrians and Swiss are so anti nuke, they are cutting out any references to the nuke plant in "Springfield" on the Simpsons. I mean, talk about government being too far into people's LIVES. I guess they figure the genie will fit back in the bottle. The thing is, Electrical demand in Europe will spike if the electric car ever does get off the ground ( I personally think it is a toy, Hydrogen is the way I think the world should go); or Hydrogen cars. Either way, that, and a growing population (through Immigration in reality) will dictate more power plants, and many in Europe are using their fear of the unknown to justify killing off any attempt at nuclear power.

Thank god wiser minds will prevail over here. As I sit, two more units will be built less than 10 miles from me. The Greenpeace wackos were arrested at the Enviromental assessment and public meetings last week protesting this project. I just don't get it. If you want more power in a northern climate where sun isn't that strong most of the year, then you have to give up on solar, and wind also as it has a lot of detractors ( I would say in Ontario, more people hate Wind than the nuclear power plant) and go with Nuclear.

Interesting....Japan hasn't changed too many rational minds, just the minds of a few who cant shake the idea of all those horrible images of radiation poisoning from those who survived the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peaceful use of nuclear fission in the form of a modern well designed reactor may be the safest form of producing power and most carbon friendly we have left once the rivers are dammed up....

[Bob Riebe]

Carbon in any form is not a problem.
You want to limit carbon dioxide, then one had better start killing people or limit births.

[BleAivano]

Carbon in any form is not a problem.
You want to limit carbon dioxide, then one had better start killing people or limit births.

or stop chopping down the rainforests.

[Bob Riebe]

or stop chopping down the rainforests.That would be a good idea but unless pop. is controlled a lost cause.

[BleAivano]

That would be a good idea but unless pop. is controlled a lost cause.

ok yeah i agree. you gotta start in the right end.

[rah]

Interesting thread. I started it wanting to see a good discussion and see where everyone sat on Nuclear power.

I find it hilarious the Germans, Austrians and Swiss are so anti nuke, they are cutting out any references to the nuke plant in "Springfield" on the Simpsons. I mean, talk about government being too far into people's LIVES. I guess they figure the genie will fit back in the bottle. The thing is, Electrical demand in Europe will spike if the electric car ever does get off the ground ( I personally think it is a toy, Hydrogen is the way I think the world should go); or Hydrogen cars. Either way, that, and a growing population (through Immigration in reality) will dictate more power plants, and many in Europe are using their fear of the unknown to justify killing off any attempt at nuclear power.

Thank god wiser minds will prevail over here. As I sit, two more units will be built less than 10 miles from me. The Greenpeace wackos were arrested at the Enviromental assessment and public meetings last week protesting this project. I just don't get it. If you want more power in a northern climate where sun isn't that strong most of the year, then you have to give up on solar, and wind also as it has a lot of detractors ( I would say in Ontario, more people hate Wind than the nuclear power plant) and go with Nuclear.

Interesting....Japan hasn't changed too many rational minds, just the minds of a few who cant shake the idea of all those horrible images of radiation poisoning from those who survived the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peaceful use of nuclear fission in the form of a modern well designed reactor may be the safest form of producing power and most carbon friendly we have left once the rivers are dammed up....

I think that most people see the accident in Japan as a an accident and not a failing of the nuke industry. Realisticly it is both.

The main problem I have with nuke power is the cost and time it takes to get going and then de-comission. If the reason for going nuke is to reduce CO2 then it will take too long and be too expensive to be effective. Doesn't mean it should not be part of the solution though.

[chuck34]

The main problem I have with nuke power is the cost and time it takes to get going and then de-comission.

I've been hearing that argument a lot lately. I have two questions 1) why does it take so long/cost so much 2) What will be cheaper per killowatt, and come on-line sooner? I do have some ideas, but I'd like to hear others.

[Mark]

I've been hearing that argument a lot lately. I have two questions 1) why does it take so long/cost so much

Because of all the containment and safety measures needed to be put in place.



2) What will be cheaper per killowatt, and come on-line sooner? I do have some ideas, but I'd like to hear others.

I don't know but I would be willing to bet that the cheapest power output to construction cost ratio would be a coal or gas fired station.

[Bagwan]

I live in the great white north , in southern Ontario , Canada , and shortly , I will be going off-grid , with 2.8kw of solar panels .

It cost , with taxes included , $19k and small change .
It was going to cost $15.5k to get our electricity provider to put in the wires to our new house .

I have capacity to enlarge the array to 3.6kw if I wish , as the inverter can handle the load .

I'll be applying for my electrical permit within the month .

I'll try to let you know how it goes .


I'll never pay for power again .
Well , I may need to replace my batteries in 10 years or so , but by that time they'll have something much more efficient and cost effective by then , I'm sure .

I have seen panels for as cheap as $.49 per watt .
Consider cutting the cord .


Incidentally , I live quite close to a nuke plant , and many of my friends work there .
I also live within wretched site of a group of 110 wind turbines . They went up just after we erected my house , dammit .

The Candu reactor bothers me much less than those friggin turbines .

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bagwan, you must be up near Bruce eh? Anyone I know up there says the same thing, they hate the turbines....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think that most people see the accident in Japan as a an accident and not a failing of the nuke industry. Realisticly it is both.

Au Contraire, The local Greenpeacers and the Green Party people around here are jumping up and down like the local nuclear plants could be in a similar peril tomorrow. The people who irrationally hate nuclear power, or have their own agenda based on forcing people to do with less through some fiat by government are using this crisis in Japan to further their aims. It is wrong, and dishonest, but there is nothing honest about socialist's who have hijacked the green movement to try to get power over people. Bagwan there is going off the grid, and the amount of resistance the government gives people going of the grid is surprising....they don't like not being needed.


The main problem I have with nuke power is the cost and time it takes to get going and then de-comission. If the reason for going nuke is to reduce CO2 then it will take too long and be too expensive to be effective. Doesn't mean it should not be part of the solution though.

It wouldn't take too long if the opposition to the plants didn't drag out every Enviromental assessment as if nuclear plants were/are new technology. IT takes a long time, but no form of power production that puts out the MW's of power like a nuclear plant will be built over night.

Nuclear power isn't the final way we should be making power, fusion will ultimately be the goal, but until then it works, it's Green house gas friendly (I was told over and over until my head turned blue that this is the "greatest crisis") and other than extreme events and some shady oversights in Japan, it has been bulletproof safe when operated in the west. No other form of energy production has had the track record to match it. The used fuel is the only real constant issue, and if people would let engineers get on with the solution, it would be solved, but 90 miles of red tape surround any attempt to deal with the fuel....

[rah]

Au Contraire, The local Greenpeacers and the Green Party people around here are jumping up and down like the local nuclear plants could be in a similar peril tomorrow. The people who irrationally hate nuclear power, or have their own agenda based on forcing people to do with less through some fiat by government are using this crisis in Japan to further their aims. It is wrong, and dishonest, but there is nothing honest about socialist's who have hijacked the green movement to try to get power over people. Bagwan there is going off the grid, and the amount of resistance the government gives people going of the grid is surprising....they don't like not being needed.



It wouldn't take too long if the opposition to the plants didn't drag out every Enviromental assessment as if nuclear plants were/are new technology. IT takes a long time, but no form of power production that puts out the MW's of power like a nuclear plant will be built over night.

Nuclear power isn't the final way we should be making power, fusion will ultimately be the goal, but until then it works, it's Green house gas friendly (I was told over and over until my head turned blue that this is the "greatest crisis") and other than extreme events and some shady oversights in Japan, it has been bulletproof safe when operated in the west. No other form of energy production has had the track record to match it. The used fuel is the only real constant issue, and if people would let engineers get on with the solution, it would be solved, but 90 miles of red tape surround any attempt to deal with the fuel....

I would hazard a guess and say that the greens in Canada do not represent the majority, or they would be in power. I know what you mean about going off grid, its one of the best bits about renewables, they can be de-centralised and many can be built in a shorter time frame.

Even if you got rid of the opposition to the plants, even the construction takes a long time. But you cannot get rid of the opposition because the opposition to the plants is what makes them so safe. The have to jump through lotts of hoops.

I do know that some scientist are working on a nuke plant design that uses a fission plant with a small fussion plant inside it. The fussion plant runs on the waste of the fission plant.

[Bagwan]

Bagwan, you must be up near Bruce eh? Anyone I know up there says the same thing, they hate the turbines....

I am indeed .
There's a direct link between our air quality here and those things .

Enbridge gas becomes Enbridge Energy , and gets the government to subsidize turbines , which gets them credits , which they take to the Chicago hub , and sell , to enable the companies across the lake in Michigan to spew even more into the wind , up-wind from us .
In doing so , they turn neighbour on neighbour , with non-disclosure agreements , and rates that can vary from $5k to $24k per year .

Dirty electrical fields and noise and the strobe effect are all making people and livestock sick , even with 500m setbacks .
Our night sky blinks red .



One main problem is the grid , itself .
If it was decentralized with panels or smaller turbines for each town , it , and we , wouldn't be so vulnerable to black or brown outs .

The other big issue with turbines is that they don't spin when you really want them to , so , without a storage system in place , we end up actually often paying to dump the excess power onto the grid .

A scenario that would be more useful , and one that I , myself want to try to utilize at some point , is to use a mechanical pumping turbine to pump water to an elevated point , thus creating potential power , much like a battery .
When the power is needed , on that hot day when the wind isn't blowing , you use the water to create electricty with a small pelton rotor .

This can be scaled to any size .

Another even better scenario , is changing waste treatment into gas production .
With this one you kill two birds with one stone , taking the methane that would normally be gassed off as the worst accounting for global warming , and , at the same time , replacing the fossil sources that are actually most at fault because they are being released from sequester in the earth's crust .


Those in power like to look green , but the deck of cards with which they play is manufactured by big business .

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

[Firstgear]

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .
I'm not so sure that's a fair comparison.
The Tesla is a 2 seater, the Volt is 4 or 5. I haven't actually checked, but I suspect the Volt is quite a bit heavier since it's built more like a regular car (seats 4 & has room in the trunk). This extra weight is going to be a real drag on the range the vehicle gets. Also, I believe the Tesla costs more than twice as much. Alot of that cost probably goes into either more batteries or more sophisticated (expensive) batteries.

I'm not trying to knock the Tesla - I'd love to try one. I just think it's not really a fair comparison, seeing as the cars were built for 2 very different customers.

[rah]

I am indeed .
There's a direct link between our air quality here and those things .

Enbridge gas becomes Enbridge Energy , and gets the government to subsidize turbines , which gets them credits , which they take to the Chicago hub , and sell , to enable the companies across the lake in Michigan to spew even more into the wind , up-wind from us .
In doing so , they turn neighbour on neighbour , with non-disclosure agreements , and rates that can vary from $5k to $24k per year .

Dirty electrical fields and noise and the strobe effect are all making people and livestock sick , even with 500m setbacks .
Our night sky blinks red .



One main problem is the grid , itself .
If it was decentralized with panels or smaller turbines for each town , it , and we , wouldn't be so vulnerable to black or brown outs .

The other big issue with turbines is that they don't spin when you really want them to , so , without a storage system in place , we end up actually often paying to dump the excess power onto the grid .

A scenario that would be more useful , and one that I , myself want to try to utilize at some point , is to use a mechanical pumping turbine to pump water to an elevated point , thus creating potential power , much like a battery .
When the power is needed , on that hot day when the wind isn't blowing , you use the water to create electricty with a small pelton rotor .

This can be scaled to any size .

Another even better scenario , is changing waste treatment into gas production .
With this one you kill two birds with one stone , taking the methane that would normally be gassed off as the worst accounting for global warming , and , at the same time , replacing the fossil sources that are actually most at fault because they are being released from sequester in the earth's crust .


Those in power like to look green , but the deck of cards with which they play is manufactured by big business .

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

Actually an easier way to store energy would be to use the excess to produce hydrogen. Then burn that in the down time.

The problem with the Volt vs Tesla is the battery capacity difference which drive a cost difference.

[Bob Riebe]

I am indeed .
There's a direct link between our air quality here and those things .

Enbridge gas becomes Enbridge Energy , and gets the government to subsidize turbines , which gets them credits , which they take to the Chicago hub , and sell , to enable the companies across the lake in Michigan to spew even more into the wind , up-wind from us .
In doing so , they turn neighbour on neighbour , with non-disclosure agreements , and rates that can vary from $5k to $24k per year .

Dirty electrical fields and noise and the strobe effect are all making people and livestock sick , even with 500m setbacks .
Our night sky blinks red .



One main problem is the grid , itself .
If it was decentralized with panels or smaller turbines for each town , it , and we , wouldn't be so vulnerable to black or brown outs .

The other big issue with turbines is that they don't spin when you really want them to , so , without a storage system in place , we end up actually often paying to dump the excess power onto the grid .

A scenario that would be more useful , and one that I , myself want to try to utilize at some point , is to use a mechanical pumping turbine to pump water to an elevated point , thus creating potential power , much like a battery .
When the power is needed , on that hot day when the wind isn't blowing , you use the water to create electricty with a small pelton rotor .

This can be scaled to any size .

Another even better scenario , is changing waste treatment into gas production .
With this one you kill two birds with one stone , taking the methane that would normally be gassed off as the worst accounting for global warming , and , at the same time , replacing the fossil sources that are actually most at fault because they are being released from sequester in the earth's crust .


Those in power like to look green , but the deck of cards with which they play is manufactured by big business .

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

IF you believe those bogus numbers for the Tesla I will warn you; if some is trying to sell you a bridge in New York City, it is not for sale.

[Bagwan]

I'm not so sure that's a fair comparison.
The Tesla is a 2 seater, the Volt is 4 or 5. I haven't actually checked, but I suspect the Volt is quite a bit heavier since it's built more like a regular car (seats 4 & has room in the trunk). This extra weight is going to be a real drag on the range the vehicle gets. Also, I believe the Tesla costs more than twice as much. Alot of that cost probably goes into either more batteries or more sophisticated (expensive) batteries.

I'm not trying to knock the Tesla - I'd love to try one. I just think it's not really a fair comparison, seeing as the cars were built for 2 very different customers.

Tesla is working on a version to compete with electric cars at half the price .

The point is , that even with essentially , repurposed cell phone batteries arranged in a block , the Tesla has more range than the volt , and you can bet the new version will as well .

Everyone who owned an EV-1 loved it , and wanted to buy out the lease .

On the TV show on Discovery , they had a story about a 17 year old who had converted a Ford ranger into an electric vehicle .
He spent $15.00 /month on his electricity bill .

You can buy kits for converting small vehicles for $12-15k .

[Bagwan]

Actually an easier way to store energy would be to use the excess to produce hydrogen. Then burn that in the down time.

The problem with the Volt vs Tesla is the battery capacity difference which drive a cost difference.

On your hydrogen point , it takes a fair whack of energy to separate it out , and along with the inefficiency of the circuitry , might cost a fair bit more .
On the other hand , when you burn it , you get water , something also useful .

I heard a talk with a bunch of energy analysts a few years ago , where I heard Ballard suggest that nukes coupled with fuel cell make an almost perfect combo .
Hydrogen takes care of the swings upward from the baseline that the nukes create , and the nukes create hydrogen when demand drops below .

If you couple that with his idea that the fuel rods could be recycled (US reactors , not CANDU unfortunately) up to 100 times with modern robotics , and you even start to clean up the nukes .

[Bob Riebe]

A story for the myoptic, batteries are a god-send group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1166387/In-search-Lithium-The-battle-3rd-element.html

[Bob Riebe]

A story for the myopic, batteries are a god-send group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1166387/In-search-Lithium-The-battle-3rd-element.html

[Bagwan]

What are you trying to say , Bob ?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tesla is working on a version to compete with electric cars at half the price .

The point is , that even with essentially , repurposed cell phone batteries arranged in a block , the Tesla has more range than the volt , and you can bet the new version will as well .

Everyone who owned an EV-1 loved it , and wanted to buy out the lease .

On the TV show on Discovery , they had a story about a 17 year old who had converted a Ford ranger into an electric vehicle .
He spent $15.00 /month on his electricity bill .

You can buy kits for converting small vehicles for $12-15k .

I don't buy the Tesla being superior technology to the Volt for a few basic reasons. ONE, Car and Driver; Road and Track; and yes, even the sometimes off the chart TV show "Top Gear" have all tested the Tesla, and not ONE of them got the range Tesla claims. I humbly will have to say Tesla can say what they like, but if their car worked half as well as they claim, they wouldn't be able to build them fast enough.

The truth is the electric car is barely feasible in harsher climates outside of the US south and the more temperate parts of Europe and the like. It is not efficient in how it keeps it's occupants warm/cold and since A/C, defrost or heater functions ALL are a drag on battery life. Tesla's little sports car likely would have almost NO range at all on a very cool day around these parts.

Furthermore, GM isn't stupid and isnt' filled with myopic engineers bent on keeping the Electric car down to help the petrochemical industry. On the contrary, the first car maker that truly makes a very good electric car that doesn't have electric car drawbacks for a price people can afford will find they cannot build them fast enough. The market is wanting a truly real car powered by electricity. Toyota's Prius and now the Volt and Nissan Leaf are the best efforts so far. The auto industry is so fierce right now, there is every incentive in the WORLD to create a truly useful electric car.

If I hear one more story of how stupid GM is over the EV 1 is, I will scream. The car didn't work. People who took them were practically begging GM to take the cars back once summer came. No A/C was the story and the cars were used in So Cal and Arizona. Think about driving one of those fish bowls in that heat with No A/C. Totally useless.....

GM lost their shirt on that deal, and GM doesn't do things like that to lose money. They wanted to work. The technology was not ready. They are a lot closer with the Volt.....but it truly isn't really an electric car in the traditional sense either. The technology doesn't not give the modern electric car the range it needs to be anything more than an urban toy. Well cars are far too expensive to only be one trick ponies, hence the slow sales and demand.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would hazard a guess and say that the greens in Canada do not represent the majority, or they would be in power. I know what you mean about going off grid, its one of the best bits about renewables, they can be de-centralised and many can be built in a shorter time frame.
The Green's are not in power, but the idea that we all must be GREEN and the GREEN economy is driving a lot of policy on the surface. One only has to look at the billions that idiot running Ontario is going to spend on GREEN, and the reality is, it is in the form of large wind farms run by multinational's making a fortune off the naive idiot paying 5 to 10 times the going rate for power for them to produce. The loser is the consumer in Ontario who is also the taxpayer subsidizing the mess.

Small scale house by house green efforts would make SO much more sense. Bagwan is going "off the grid" for power, and the government and the huge power producers are scared of it. They cant make money off Bagwan and anyone else who does this. Cant have people having independence or freedom....


Even if you got rid of the opposition to the plants, even the construction takes a long time. But you cannot get rid of the opposition because the opposition to the plants is what makes them so safe. The have to jump through lots of hoops.

It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard. Most of the opposition is either ill informed, or willingfully twisting things to their point of view for their political agenda. The few intelligent and skeptical people who participate in the process often are lost in the shuffle. All of these people have the right to question things, the right to protest and within reason, participate in the process (chaining oneself to a table in the EA hearing room screaming at the people to stop the plant isn't participating, but Greenpeace doesn't believe it). No, it isn't the opposition that makes these plants safe, it is common sense, and the the cool reality that most politicians when helping strike legislation to help regulate the nuclear industry are doing so with the best interests of society at heart. Naive assumption I am making there I am sure, but I do think on some level, no political party in this country would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to any industry that could wreak the havoc a nuclear accident can. However, as I said, the people running the plants are not suicidal and they are not stupid.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would hazard a guess and say that the greens in Canada do not represent the majority, or they would be in power. I know what you mean about going off grid, its one of the best bits about renewables, they can be de-centralised and many can be built in a shorter time frame.
The Green's are not in power, but the idea that we all must be GREEN and the GREEN economy is driving a lot of policy on the surface. One only has to look at the billions that idiot running Ontario is going to spend on GREEN, and the reality is, it is in the form of large wind farms run by multinational's making a fortune off the naive idiot paying 5 to 10 times the going rate for power for them to produce. The loser is the consumer in Ontario who is also the taxpayer subsidizing the mess.

Small scale house by house green efforts would make SO much more sense. Bagwan is going "off the grid" for power, and the government and the huge power producers are scared of it. They cant make money off Bagwan and anyone else who does this. Cant have people having independence or freedom....


Even if you got rid of the opposition to the plants, even the construction takes a long time. But you cannot get rid of the opposition because the opposition to the plants is what makes them so safe. The have to jump through lots of hoops.

It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard. Most of the opposition is either ill informed, or willingfully twisting things to their point of view for their political agenda. The few intelligent and skeptical people who participate in the process often are lost in the shuffle. All of these people have the right to question things, the right to protest and within reason, participate in the process (chaining oneself to a table in the EA hearing room screaming at the people to stop the plant isn't participating, but Greenpeace doesn't believe it). No, it isn't the opposition that makes these plants safe, it is common sense, and the the cool reality that most politicians when helping strike legislation to help regulate the nuclear industry are doing so with the best interests of society at heart. Naive assumption I am making there I am sure, but I do think on some level, no political party in this country would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to any industry that could wreak the havoc a nuclear accident can. However, as I said, the people running the plants are not suicidal and they are not stupid.....

[Bagwan]

The greens don't even get a seat at the debate . Sad .

We had the turbines first .
Now , we have Microfit panels all over .

So , they've screwed with wind , pitting neighbour on neighbour , municipality against province , and the public for and against it .

And , now , I drive down to the local dairy and see about 15 solar set-ups on the way .
Not one is allowed to use the power , even if the grid goes down .
Those set-ups cost between $75 and $125 k , when 2.8kw can be had for about $20k , and I'll never pay again .

Twas and is still a no-brainer , even for me .

By the way , how much was that bridge , if you don't mind me askin ?

[Malbec]

It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard.

I think its naive in the extreme to believe that those reactors were designed by the local community and that safety standards will be strictly adhered to merely because the people who commission and work in the reactor live next to it.

Human nature is universal. There is a long list of industries, not just nuclear, that are happy to pollute and destroy the same region that those who own, manage and work in them are drawn, endangering lives of their own kin if it means that a quick buck can be made.

There are plenty of nuclear reactors in the former Warsaw Pact located very close to major cities which are built to standards that would not have been acceptable at any point in the West, yet they were commissioned by people who by Canadian standards live next door to them. According to your theory that wouldn't have happened.

A review of the root causes of why Chernobyl ended up being built with known design flaws that eventually lead to the disaster there might be useful. You might be interested to know that the local Ukrainian administration pushed for the reactor to be built against the advice of engineers sent from Moscow who recommended a fundamental redesign in order for it to be safe. The latter were overruled by the locals who were more interested in getting awards for bringing the project in on time and on budget. So much for the local community not willingly building a time bomb in their own back yard.

While I am a strong advocate of nuclear power I am under no illusions whatsoever that their design, construction and even location need to be scrutinised long and hard by independent bodies. In an open society the drive to have that degree of scrutinisation often comes from the anti-nuclear body and I'm all for it. If that means that nuclear reactors have a long lead time, might be cancelled due to re-reviews and generally end up very expensive because of all the safety features required by governing bodies then thats a price worth paying.

I am not worried about the safety of nuclear reactors in democratic open societies where there are strong social and political pressures to ensure safety. My concern is with opaque unaccountable societies such as China and Russia where there is also a strong element of corruption at work, which are also the countries that happen to be building the largest number of new reactors.

[Malbec]

I'm not so sure that's a fair comparison.
The Tesla is a 2 seater, the Volt is 4 or 5. I haven't actually checked, but I suspect the Volt is quite a bit heavier since it's built more like a regular car (seats 4 & has room in the trunk). This extra weight is going to be a real drag on the range the vehicle gets. Also, I believe the Tesla costs more than twice as much. Alot of that cost probably goes into either more batteries or more sophisticated (expensive) batteries.

I'm not trying to knock the Tesla - I'd love to try one. I just think it's not really a fair comparison, seeing as the cars were built for 2 very different customers.

Exactly. The two cars are very different. The Tesla has three times the battery capacity than the Volt and is about a third lighter. Also the Tesla is purely electric whereas the Volt is a hybrid (despite the GM blurb) and therefore doesn't rely purely on its battery.

The Tesla also won't reach anywhere near 300 miles when driven at supercar speeds, just as supercars won't get anywhere near their official economy figures when driven as they are designed to be.

That said both are important in different ways, the Tesla as a technology innovator with new software to manage the batteries better (which is the biggest single problem electric car designers face when trying to improve economy) whilst the Volt brings a new angle to the hybrid market.

[Bob Riebe]

What are you trying to say , Bob ?
The people who use the farce name "green" taut batteries as "green", well that article makes getting the components for the "green" batteries far more destructive than all the carbon bs yet spewed.

Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise.
--------------------------------
http://thecontrail.com/profiles/blogs/holes-in-the-ozone-scare
Here is another turd on the greenie plate:

By Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons)
Political Analyst
23rd August 1999
As with Greenhouse Effect, the Ozone Hole scare has been a victim of political and corporate interests, media bias and pseudoscience. Again, the media has left many of us in the dark, recycling lies and half-truths while giving rise to unwarranted alarm.
No doubt, many readers will be familiar with the theory of CFCs obliterating the ozone layer. However, as we will see later, this theory rapidly crumbles when we separate science from political deception. The ozone depletion theory originated from Mario Molina in December 1973 despite that Molina knew nothing about the stratosphere or stratospheric chemistry; his expertise was in chemical lasers[1]. Molina came to Sherwood Rowland, another scientist with no expertise in stratospheric chemistry and they worked together producing what scientists commonly know as Rowland and Molina's Theory[2]. The theory assumed CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks[3]. They assumed ultraviolet radiation breaks up CFCs in the stratosphere whereby freeing a chlorine atom. The theory goes on to assume this chlorine reacts with ozone producing diatomic oxygen and a highly reactive compound, chlorine monoxide. Molina predicted the chlorine monoxide would break up, thus setting up a catalytic chain reaction destroying between 20 and 40 percent of the ozone layer[4]. The chemical reactions as hypothesised by Molina can be seen below for the common refrigerant CFC-12.
CCl2F2 + ultraviolet radiation ----> Cl + CClF2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Unfortunately, many environmentalists conveniently omit scientific evidence that does not fit their perceived vision of environmental cataclysm. Firstly, the chance of many CFCs finding their way up to the stratosphere is very remote considering CFCs, depending on which compound is being measured, are four to eight times heavier than air[5]. Secondly, it is only natural for ozone levels to oscillate in the stratosphere; they are simply a function of the solar sunspot cycle[6]. Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s[7]. However, the Ozone Trends Panel's starting date was chosen at 1969 when ozone levels were at a peak[8]. This deceptive graphical plot hides the fact that back in 1962 there was also an "ozone hole."[9] It is also a curiosity that the ozone hole forms over Antarctica, when in fact most CFCs are emitted from the Northern Hemisphere.
Norwegian scientists Søren Larsen and Thormod Henriksen have analysed the Arctic ozone layer back to the year 1935 and conclude:[10]
"The data from long-term ozone measurements reveal periods of several years with a negative trend [decrease] and other periods with a positive trend [increase]. The combined results up to 1989 give no evidence for a long-term negative trend of the Arctic ozone layer...."[11]

[Rollo]

Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise.
--------------------------------
http://thecontrail.com/profiles/blogs/holes-in-the-ozone-scare
Here is another turd on the greenie plate:

[b]By Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons)
Political Analyst
23rd August 1999
As with Greenhouse Effect, the Ozone Hole scare has been a victim of political and corporate interests, media bias and pseudoscience. Again, the media has left many of us in the dark, recycling lies and half-truths while giving rise to unwarranted alarm.

http://www.sunsmart.com.au/about_us/facts_and_stats_at_a_glance
Skin cancers account for about 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year in Australia. Each year, Australians are 4 times more likely to develop a common skin cancer than any other form of cancer

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/skincancer/publishing.nsf/Content/fact-2#5
Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common cancers diagnosed in Australia, with approximately 430,000 new cases estimated to have been diagnosed in 2008

Those rates according to the ABS Book of Statistics have been steadily on the rise on a per 100,000 basis since 1965.

I note that Jeremy Beck is a Political Analyst and as such, has probably been commissioned to write this piece by a lobby group.
I also note this "Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s". Really? When did the first satellites go up? The truth is that there were zero satellites above the atmosphere montoring anything until at least 1957, and specifically the Nimbus satellites were the first to go up in 1964.

Halogens do destroy ozone. You can prove it in a lab. The article you've linked to is so worthless as to be laughable.

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.sunsmart.com.au/about_us/facts_and_stats_at_a_glance
Skin cancers account for about 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year in Australia. Each year, Australians are 4 times more likely to develop a common skin cancer than any other form of cancer

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/skincancer/publishing.nsf/Content/fact-2#5
Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common cancers diagnosed in Australia, with approximately 430,000 new cases estimated to have been diagnosed in 2008

Those rates according to the ABS Book of Statistics have been steadily on the rise on a per 100,000 basis since 1965.

I note that Jeremy Beck is a Political Analyst and as such, has probably been commissioned to write this piece by a lobby group.
I also note this "Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s". Really? When did the first satellites go up? The truth is that there were zero satellites above the atmosphere montoring anything until at least 1957, and specifically the Nimbus satellites were the first to go up in 1964.

Halogens do destroy ozone. You can prove it in a lab. The article you've linked to is so worthless as to be laughable.

Yes, they have stuffed rats with sugar till it was linked to cancer also, such laboratory results are as worthless as you the article is.
The Chicken-Little types have been exposed as the self-righteous scam artists they are.
One can only hope the general populace finds this information as today's educators are part of the Chicken-Little society.

There is no proof, just opinions based on egos.

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.sunsmart.com.au/about_us/facts_and_stats_at_a_glance
Skin cancers account for about 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year in Australia. Each year, Australians are 4 times more likely to develop a common skin cancer than any other form of cancer

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/skincancer/publishing.nsf/Content/fact-2#5
Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common cancers diagnosed in Australia, with approximately 430,000 new cases estimated to have been diagnosed in 2008

Those rates according to the ABS Book of Statistics have been steadily on the rise on a per 100,000 basis since 1965.

I note that Jeremy Beck is a Political Analyst and as such, has probably been commissioned to write this piece by a lobby group.
I also note this "Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s". Really? When did the first satellites go up? The truth is that there were zero satellites above the atmosphere montoring anything until at least 1957, and specifically the Nimbus satellites were the first to go up in 1964.

Halogens do destroy ozone. You can prove it in a lab. The article you've linked to is so worthless as to be laughable.

Yes, they have stuffed rats with sugar till it was linked to cancer also, such laboratory results are as worthless as you the article is.
The Chicken-Little types have been exposed as the self-righteous scam artists they are.
One can only hope the general populace finds this information as today's educators are part of the Chicken-Little society.

There is no proof, just opinions based on egos.
-----------
As for the skin cancer; autism is increasing at a rate never seen before, that must be caused by too much sunlight also.

[Rollo]

As for the skin cancer; autism is increasing at a rate never seen before, that must be caused by too much sunlight also.

Care to provide a link to this?

[Bob Riebe]

Care to provide a link to this?

From Time magazine:


One in a hundred American children has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). That stunning new statistic was released on Monday by the Federal Government, officially revising the 2007 federal estimate of 1 in 150 children. The new number puts U.S. prevalence on par with reported rates in England, Japan, Sweden and Canada. It is based on two separate and very different government-funded research studies: a telephone survey of 78,037 parents by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and a rigorous national surveillance study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In an unusual show of attention and concern, top officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health and the CDC held a press conference on Oct. 2 in which they attempted to explain the new numbers, allay concerns and assure the public that substantial government resources are being devoted to understanding autism

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1927824,00.html#ixzz1JwQfQT6o

Of course if you do not like the source you ignore it.

[Rollo]

I don't doubt either the claim that Autism is on the rise, or the source.

I do doubt this claim:


autism is increasing at a rate never seen before, that must be caused by too much sunlight also.
Autism related to "too much sunlight"? That's patently absurd and a non-sequitur.

There is a great deal of evidence that causally links increased UV to incidence of skin-cancer though.

[rah]

Of course if you do not like the source you ignore it.

Priceless.

[Roamy]

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.

Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.

I can’t be bothered to post links. Google it for yourselves.

We as well as Canada probably have enough rivers to sustain electric power. So battery technology will take us from the fossil fuels to the reality.

[Malbec]

As for the skin cancer; autism is increasing at a rate never seen before, that must be caused by too much sunlight also.

Hilarious!

Why is it then that autism rates are higher the further you go from the equator then, in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia and is practically non-existent in the sunniest countries? Also explain why autism is highest in the offspring of those who spend the least time outdoors, specifically those who work in technical fields such as computing and lowest in those who expose themselves to the most sunlight like manual workers and farmers?

[Bob Riebe]

Hilarious!

Why is it then that autism rates are higher the further you go from the equator then, in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia and is practically non-existent in the sunniest countries? Also explain why autism is highest in the offspring of those who spend the least time outdoors, specifically those who work in technical fields such as computing and lowest in those who expose themselves to the most sunlight like manual workers and farmers?
You thought that was a serious statement-- well liberals often miss the boat--bada BOOm !

[Malbec]

You thought that was a serious statement-- well liberals often miss the boat--bada BOOm !

It made as much sense as the rest of the 'scientific' stuff you posted.

You're clearly in the wrong trade Bob, you've got a natural talent for comedy.

[Rollo]

You're clearly in the wrong trade Bob, you've got a natural talent for comedy.

Much in the same way as Geoffrey Howe did I suppose...

[Bagwan]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
"The people who use the farce name "green" taut batteries as "green", well that article makes getting the components for the "green" batteries far more destructive than all the carbon bs yet spewed.

Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise."

There will be trade-offs for sustainability , Bob .

New , more efficient means of extraction will come with more money in . It's how it works .

It's fine to slag lithium as an element in sustainability for it's effect on the local environment , but do we not need to actually compare it to the other methods we now employ .
I've seen big coal pits , and some are on fire , underground .
I've seen the oil patch , and it's not pretty either .
I've seen pics of strip mines where they get the raw material for reactors .
Even a silicon mine for panels isn't a pretty sight , I've read .

The battery is in the centre of this whole affair .
The one who gets it right first will be king .

All of our power comes from the sun .
I'm hoping that , when it comes time to replace my lead acid bank , lithium , or some other breakthrough , will make it both cheaper and more long lasting .

[Bob Riebe]

It made as much sense as the rest of the 'scientific' stuff you posted.

You're clearly in the wrong trade Bob, you've got a natural talent for comedy.
No it shows that your thought processes may be processed in the vicinity of a different pair of cheeks than most people, except possibly the politically connected persons of the supposed science arena.

Of course if times are tough they could always work as rodeo clowns.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
"The people who use the farce name "green" taut batteries as "green", well that article makes getting the components for the "green" batteries far more destructive than all the carbon bs yet spewed.

Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise."

There will be trade-offs for sustainability , Bob .

New , more efficient means of extraction will come with more money in . It's how it works .

It's fine to slag lithium as an element in sustainability for it's effect on the local environment , but do we not need to actually compare it to the other methods we now employ .
I've seen big coal pits , and some are on fire , underground .
I've seen the oil patch , and it's not pretty either .
I've seen pics of strip mines where they get the raw material for reactors .
Even a silicon mine for panels isn't a pretty sight , I've read .

The battery is in the centre of this whole affair .
The one who gets it right first will be king .

All of our power comes from the sun .
I'm hoping that , when it comes time to replace my lead acid bank , lithium , or some other breakthrough , will make it both cheaper and more long lasting .Coal is low priced, oil is low priced. Profit is high. There is no other systems which offer similar profit margins; therefore the money is not there unless extorted from the tax-payers by draconian governments.

You are in Canada; therefore you should know the foolishness of relyig on batteries in any cold climate. If a separate system is needed of heating the passengers, then the battery is a farce.
I often go to farm shows and admire the old 18v systems that were used where power lines were not available, a few still use them, or at least did a decade or so ago, as they have them and a windmill (not the ugily huge ones) to charge the batteries, but they are as dependent on a permanent power source as all the new one being pushed by hardware stores.

ON a side note, when I drive in the country and see the old wind-mills unused I often think if the ones who own that property ever complain about the price of electricity they should shut their pie-holes and use that item sitting outside unused.
I have a cousin who repaired, replaced, the blades. Not cheap but cheaper than the new ones.

[Malbec]

No it shows that your thought processes may be processed in the vicinity of a different pair of cheeks than most people, except possibly the politically connected persons of the supposed science arena.

Of course if times are tough they could always work as rodeo clowns.

How good of you Bob to reply with yet another insult, and how predictable. Remind me how I insulted you?

[Bagwan]

Coal is low priced, oil is low priced. Profit is high. There is no other systems which offer similar profit margins; therefore the money is not there unless extorted from the tax-payers by draconian governments.

You are in Canada; therefore you should know the foolishness of relyig on batteries in any cold climate. If a separate system is needed of heating the passengers, then the battery is a farce.
I often go to farm shows and admire the old 18v systems that were used where power lines were not available, a few still use them, or at least did a decade or so ago, as they have them and a windmill (not the ugily huge ones) to charge the batteries, but they are as dependent on a permanent power source as all the new one being pushed by hardware stores.

ON a side note, when I drive in the country and see the old wind-mills unused I often think if the ones who own that property ever complain about the price of electricity they should shut their pie-holes and use that item sitting outside unused.
I have a cousin who repaired, replaced, the blades. Not cheap but cheaper than the new ones.

What's the cost of an oil spill , a rather pertinent question on the anniversary of the BP disaster ?
What's the cost of a coal mine fire ?

Do you take that into account , too ?


You're right about the cold weather being an obstacle for battery cars .
The batteries , themselves would need heating in many cases , and heat is not cheap , in terms of battery life .

At present , it'd be tough to do between the start of December and the end of March .
Tough , even with a good parka , but doable .

I'm not sure I understood your second paragraph .
How are the turbines being sold at local hardware stores dependent on a permanent power source ?

On that side note , I recently read an article in Home Power magazine that talked about all those old wind pumpers , and whether they are worth the trouble to re-vamp or re-purpose .
The gearing mechanism , while made to last , and really robust , is what goes first , because it's up there in the weather .
That's what usually kills them .
But , after many years up , it's not the only issue .

Once it has stopped spinning , and been furled , to take it "out of the wind" , you'll notice , eventually , the blades fall off .
They are held on by bolts not dissimilar to those holding all the joints in the structure , itself .

So , you can cut those "pie-holes" some slack , as , often , it's un-wise to even climb the thing , let alone expect it to still be able withstand the added drag replacing the blades or replacing the whole head would create .
Your cousin must have been working with pumpers that still had a little galvanizing left on them .

I do see a few new ones going up here and there in my travels locally , many to feed small ponds for both the esthetic and for livestock watering .
It's one of the "old ways" that I'm glad to see coming back .

[Bob Riebe]

What's the cost of an oil spill , a rather pertinent question on the anniversary of the BP disaster ?
What's the cost of a coal mine fire ?

Do you take that into account , too ?


You're right about the cold weather being an obstacle for battery cars .
The batteries , themselves would need heating in many cases , and heat is not cheap , in terms of battery life .

At present , it'd be tough to do between the start of December and the end of March .
Tough , even with a good parka , but doable .

I'm not sure I understood your second paragraph .
How are the turbines being sold at local hardware stores dependent on a permanent power source ?

On that side note , I recently read an article in Home Power magazine that talked about all those old wind pumpers , and whether they are worth the trouble to re-vamp or re-purpose .
The gearing mechanism , while made to last , and really robust , is what goes first , because it's up there in the weather .
That's what usually kills them .
But , after many years up , it's not the only issue .

Once it has stopped spinning , and been furled , to take it "out of the wind" , you'll notice , eventually , the blades fall off .
They are held on by bolts not dissimilar to those holding all the joints in the structure , itself .

So , you can cut those "pie-holes" some slack , as , often , it's un-wise to even climb the thing , let alone expect it to still be able withstand the added drag replacing the blades or replacing the whole head would create .
Your cousin must have been working with pumpers that still had a little galvanizing left on them .

I do see a few new ones going up here and there in my travels locally , many to feed small ponds for both the esthetic and for livestock watering .
It's one of the "old ways" that I'm glad to see coming back .
The items that need a power source are the battery powered tools now common and being hyped by hard-ware stores. Oddly, but not really, to make the truly useful they would be sold with a converter so when the battery goes dead all one would have to do is plug into an outlet, but no one has ever offered that yet.

More people have been killed by airbags in the past twenty years than have been killed by oil well problems, and the numbers between coal mines and air-bags are probably closer than anyone would admit.
Ban airbags.

[Mark]

You're right about the cold weather being an obstacle for battery cars .
The batteries , themselves would need heating in many cases , and heat is not cheap , in terms of battery life .


It's not just the batteries themselves that have that issue. Even in the UK car inside of the car needs to be heated for at least 4 months of the year, with petrol/diesel engines we don't think about that because the heat comes for 'free', but with all electric that isn't the case of course. I do wonder in milage ranges for electric cars they ever factor this in.

[Rollo]

It's not just the batteries themselves that have that issue. Even in the UK car inside of the car needs to be heated for at least 4 months of the year, with petrol/diesel engines we don't think about that because the heat comes for 'free', but with all electric that isn't the case of course. I do wonder in milage ranges for electric cars they ever factor this in.

The really weird thing about heaters generally is that usually heat is a waste product, but with a heater that is its raison d'être.

The question for any private transport is how to carry your energy supply with you, and that is why a petrol/diesel engine is so effective. Lots of power in a relatively compact package with a carryable energy supply.
If we were to swtich en masse to driving electric cars, then what would be wrong with installing overhead wires everywhere and making cars run with pantographs like trolley buses or trams?
I think I remember seeing something similar to that in the Super Mario Bros. movie.

[Mark]

The really weird thing about heaters generally is that usually heat is a waste product, but with a heater that is its raison d'être.

The question for any private transport is how to carry your energy supply with you, and that is why a petrol/diesel engine is so effective. Lots of power in a relatively compact package with a carryable energy supply.
If we were to swtich en masse to driving electric cars, then what would be wrong with installing overhead wires everywhere and making cars run with pantographs like trolley buses or trams?
I think I remember seeing something similar to that in the Super Mario Bros. movie.

Presumably the cost? Just look at how many railway lines in the UK still remain unelectrified, when there are relatively few railways about the place.

A more sensible suggestion I've seen is fitting magnetic induction lines under the road surface of major roads so that if you are on a main road your car will be charging up as you go along, it can then use this power when you turn off onto unelectrified roads. Still, the infrastructure costs would be massive and you still have to have an alternative power source if you are travelling off-grid for longer than your charge holds.

[SGWilko]

It's not just the batteries themselves that have that issue. Even in the UK car inside of the car needs to be heated for at least 4 months of the year, with petrol/diesel engines we don't think about that because the heat comes for 'free', but with all electric that isn't the case of course. I do wonder in milage ranges for electric cars they ever factor this in.

I think you will find an electric motor will generate its fair share of heat which can be circulated around the cockpit....

[Bagwan]

The items that need a power source are the battery powered tools now common and being hyped by hard-ware stores. Oddly, but not really, to make the truly useful they would be sold with a converter so when the battery goes dead all one would have to do is plug into an outlet, but no one has ever offered that yet.

More people have been killed by airbags in the past twenty years than have been killed by oil well problems, and the numbers between coal mines and air-bags are probably closer than anyone would admit.
Ban airbags.

I have both kinds of drill , Bob , as both have limitations .

11 people died in the initial explosion on the BP rig , and they are still cleaning it up .
Chemical dispersants may be worse than the oil , itself , on the marine environment .
What's the cost of that clean-up ?
What's the cost to the tourism economy when the beach was covered in tar balls and stunk like a refinery ?

What's the cost of the global shading that occurs mid-atlantic , due to the carbon particles emitted by plants on the eastern seaboard , that has seen the north of Africa without rain for the last twenty or so years ?



I do understand your cynical tone , Bob .

We have good reason to believe that we have had a serious effect on this planet , and that there will be a turning point , both economically and environmentally , when oil and coal are no longer viable .

A friend of mine recently visited Shanghai .
It had an ugly grey sky , but he saw some light in it all , if you'll pardon the pun .
On every roof was an array of solar tubes , heating water for domestic and heating use .
We went for an hour long ride on a bullet train to get to his destination , still within Shanghai , and said he never saw a roof without them .

That's progress , albeit still with a grey skyline , driven by money .

How much do you pay to heat your water ?
I paid $1,500 for my solar tubes .

[Bagwan]

It's not just the batteries themselves that have that issue. Even in the UK car inside of the car needs to be heated for at least 4 months of the year, with petrol/diesel engines we don't think about that because the heat comes for 'free', but with all electric that isn't the case of course. I do wonder in milage ranges for electric cars they ever factor this in.

That's why I mentioned my parka , Mark .

In winter here , where we can get -40C which is also -40F , batteries would need indoor storage , and really good insulation to be viable .
That part is doable , for sure .

[Bagwan]

The really weird thing about heaters generally is that usually heat is a waste product, but with a heater that is its raison d'être.

The question for any private transport is how to carry your energy supply with you, and that is why a petrol/diesel engine is so effective. Lots of power in a relatively compact package with a carryable energy supply.
If we were to swtich en masse to driving electric cars, then what would be wrong with installing overhead wires everywhere and making cars run with pantographs like trolley buses or trams?
I think I remember seeing something similar to that in the Super Mario Bros. movie.

Back when oil was running more freely , GM and big oil bought out most of the urban rail systems across the US . Diesel bus became the norm .

[Roamy]

What's the cost of an oil spill , a rather pertinent question on the anniversary of the BP disaster ?
What's the cost of a coal mine fire ?

Do you take that into account , too ?


You're right about the cold weather being an obstacle for battery cars .
The batteries , themselves would need heating in many cases , and heat is not cheap , in terms of battery life .

At present , it'd be tough to do between the start of December and the end of March .
Tough , even with a good parka , but doable .

I'm not sure I understood your second paragraph .
How are the turbines being sold at local hardware stores dependent on a permanent power source ?

On that side note , I recently read an article in Home Power magazine that talked about all those old wind pumpers , and whether they are worth the trouble to re-vamp or re-purpose .
The gearing mechanism , while made to last , and really robust , is what goes first , because it's up there in the weather .
That's what usually kills them .
But , after many years up , it's not the only issue .

Once it has stopped spinning , and been furled , to take it "out of the wind" , you'll notice , eventually , the blades fall off .
They are held on by bolts not dissimilar to those holding all the joints in the structure , itself .

So , you can cut those "pie-holes" some slack , as , often , it's un-wise to even climb the thing , let alone expect it to still be able withstand the added drag replacing the blades or replacing the whole head would create .
Your cousin must have been working with pumpers that still had a little galvanizing left on them .

I do see a few new ones going up here and there in my travels locally , many to feed small ponds for both the esthetic and for livestock watering .
It's one of the "old ways" that I'm glad to see coming back .

great post - another good reason to relocate to Costa Rica

[Bagwan]

great post - another good reason to relocate to Costa Rica

I take it you don't have a parka .

It'd be really easy in Santa Fe , lil cowpoke .
"That big ol' sun never loses it's poop in them parts ." my buddy , Mick used to say .
You should be able to find panels at less than a buck a watt .

That's cheaper than a three legged mule .

[Bob Riebe]

Back when oil was running more freely , GM and big oil bought out most of the urban rail systems across the US . Diesel bus became the norm .
That is a fact but not it was more of paying off politicians to shut them down.
Some one was convicted and if I remember correctly, his punishment was about equal to a parking fine.

[Bagwan]

That is a fact but not it was more of paying off politicians to shut them down.
Some one was convicted and if I remember correctly, his punishment was about equal to a parking fine.

And , it really isn't until now that we start to realize how much damage that it has done .
That's a lot of diesel , Bob .

In those days , hydro-electric power made the future bright , but oil still secured themselves a future in the background .


It's over $1.40/litre here right now . It's approaching $100.00 to fill the mini-van .

The Mennonites around me get 20miles/quarter bale of hay and a cup of oats . There's no heater , but if you take a half a dozen bricks , warmed on the woodstove before you leave , and lay them on the floor of the wagon , they'll keep your feet warm under the blanket over your lap .

As it happens , we can learn a few things from those folks .
I got all my solar equipment from a fellow in that community .

[Bob Riebe]

And , it really isn't until now that we start to realize how much damage that it has done .
That's a lot of diesel , Bob .

In those days , hydro-electric power made the future bright , but oil still secured themselves a future in the background .


In Minn. hydro has always been a minor player.

My home town had a dam until two years ago, that had once powered a mill. All the major duct work was/ is still there. Now it has been turned into a glorified rapids, and the flood gate that was used has been closed so if we get a flood as big as 1965 all the water will be forced through one channel and if large ice chunks are present they will hit the bridge.

The same town has two power plants, one was steam powered but some dim-wit decided that diesel engines were better so all the steam engines were replaced with diesel and then they decided a natural gas powered turbine was better yet so the closed, but not yet dismantled the diesel site and built to turbine powered units, which they found out were too expensive so now they have to buy power.
There is no one capable of running the diesel plant as the city is run by the usual cluster-f type people so hiring people to run the diesel plant is not even being considered.

This same town once had three railroads and until the seventies one could by a ticket, on the day the last operating one ran, that would drop one off in the middle of Minneapolis, a block from the Greyhound station, but few used it. As with too may railroads in the U.S. in the eighties, closing lines was considered more profitable than improving line.

We also had a daily Greyhound bus service that died from lack of use.

3M which has one of the largest plants in my home town, built a bridge and rail-yard to use the railroad plus a new very large grain elevator was built for the farm CO-OP but the railroad made many promises that were the usual hot-air.

The city I am in right now writing this, had a hydro dam, that was closed, I think, after the '65 floods damaged it. No one wanted to spend the money, but suprisingly about ten years ago, as electricity prices were going up, some truly bright people decided it was worth the effort to rebuild it and did.
It is not a very large unit but it helps.

Unfortunately a very large much need coal plant that was to be built on the North Dakota-Minn. border was killed by people whose only connection to the area was hatred for the coal that would have reduced their cost for electricity. They did/do not give a damn that the lack of power up there is driving prices up in an area where the cost of living already is high due to remoteness, but then the liberals who helped kill it do not have the balls to go live up there where -30 F is the norm in the winter.

[Bagwan]

I own a mill , Bob .
Built in 1872 , it was a woolen mill , one of three mills in close proximity .

The other two are at the dam , and mine is the first downstream , once fed by a 36" penstock from the grist mill on my side .
When levels dropped , and my mill couldn't be supplied , they stoked up a coal fired steam boiler, which amply supplied the mill's looms and such .

They supplied the area's pioneers with tweed blankets .

And , not long after the turn of that century , they were made redundant , as cheaper goods came in with new roads and rails .

I'm told there's a 52" turbine down in the bottom , buried soundly in the silt .


Some might wonder why I wouldn't bring it back into service , but there's a bigger problem with which to deal before it could ever be possible .
The river is not the same .

It's fed , originally , by a huge swamp , which , in times past would release it's water slowly , making for a full millpond for a long way into the summer .
Today , with so many acres clear , the water runs much faster into the river .
Even more devastating than the loss of trees , is the speed at which our land is being tile drained , in an effort to grab any last inch of space to plant crops . That makes the water disappear faster every year , and dumps huge amounts of "effluent" into the river .


I do have plans to cover the roof in solar , though .

"...only connection to the area was hatred for the coal that would have reduced their cost for electricity."

The haters wanted clean air , Bob .
They understood that fossil cost .

"I used to be such a fool , runnin' around on fossil fuel , 'til I could see what I was doin' , was runnin' down that road to ruin .
Damn this traffic jam . How I hates to be late . Hurts my motor to go so slow . Time I get home , my supper be cold . " -James Taylor .

[rah]

Presumably the cost? Just look at how many railway lines in the UK still remain unelectrified, when there are relatively few railways about the place.

A more sensible suggestion I've seen is fitting magnetic induction lines under the road surface of major roads so that if you are on a main road your car will be charging up as you go along, it can then use this power when you turn off onto unelectrified roads. Still, the infrastructure costs would be massive and you still have to have an alternative power source if you are travelling off-grid for longer than your charge holds.

I do remember some clever folk in the US that are working on paint on lasers and some other working on paint on PV Solar. One of the applications was on roadways so that they could get solar power from roads.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think you will find an electric motor will generate its fair share of heat which can be circulated around the cockpit....

Til the battery runs dead because it is less efficient in cold weather. No sir, If I have to drive 20 km in -20 C to go to work, I don't want the electric car. I want the gas powered one because I know it wont let me down and it wont force me to come right back home and plug it back in. If I decide to run errands or go to a show or visit friends further afield, I don't have to worry about my charge.

The real problem with any electric car is constantly planning and evalutating your range. You cannot be as spontaneous about where you are going, and if it is really cold, as it is here for about 3 months a year, your range just got THAT much shorter.

[rah]

Til the battery runs dead because it is less efficient in cold weather. No sir, If I have to drive 20 km in -20 C to go to work, I don't want the electric car. I want the gas powered one because I know it wont let me down and it wont force me to come right back home and plug it back in. If I decide to run errands or go to a show or visit friends further afield, I don't have to worry about my charge.

The real problem with any electric car is constantly planning and evalutating your range. You cannot be as spontaneous about where you are going, and if it is really cold, as it is here for about 3 months a year, your range just got THAT much shorter.

While there have been some great developments with batteries, I think your right. Thats why my great hope for the future is algae or enzyme based biofuels. Apart from production, it fits into the existing infrastructure. Oh yeah and electric cars have a lot of promise but at the end of the day they sound like crap.

[Bagwan]

Til the battery runs dead because it is less efficient in cold weather. No sir, If I have to drive 20 km in -20 C to go to work, I don't want the electric car. I want the gas powered one because I know it wont let me down and it wont force me to come right back home and plug it back in. If I decide to run errands or go to a show or visit friends further afield, I don't have to worry about my charge.

The real problem with any electric car is constantly planning and evalutating your range. You cannot be as spontaneous about where you are going, and if it is really cold, as it is here for about 3 months a year, your range just got THAT much shorter.

Do you not somewhat evaluate your range in your "fossil" vehicle , too , when you glance at the gas gauge ?
It's really no different .

My one friend with a taxi soon to be converted will be heavily insulating his batteries in winter , and will have a second set to swap out so he doesn't miss out on the second half of the night because he made a lot of cash in the first .
And , this is really only necessary because the charging takes some time .

Rather than $100.00 a night in gas , it'll be about $5.00 in electricity .
At that rate , the $15k to change over will pay back in no time .

The Tesla takes 8 hours , or , with an optional speed charger , 4 hours .

[Bagwan]

While there have been some great developments with batteries, I think your right. Thats why my great hope for the future is algae or enzyme based biofuels. Apart from production, it fits into the existing infrastructure. Oh yeah and electric cars have a lot of promise but at the end of the day they sound like crap.

Every village , town , and city has a sewage treatment plant .
And , every one can , and likely eventually will be turned into a methane gas production facility .
Near me , in Walkerton(the name heard round the world when the sewage met the water system) , they are trying this very idea .

Methane , or natural gas , as it's known , fit's in pretty seamlessly as well , and likely better than algae or bio-fuels .

And , by the way , all that engine noise keeps you from hearing the squeal of the tires .

[Bob Riebe]

Do you not somewhat evaluate your range in your "fossil" vehicle , too , when you glance at the gas gauge ?
It's really no different .


Not actually even basically the same.
One can carry a hundred or more miles of screw-up fuel in the trunk, and if one pushes one's fortune too far, one can be back on the road, at times in mere minutes or can walk and get an emergency splash of fuel with time being calculated in minutes, not hours.

While the vehicle is not running the power supply does not drain either.

If methane were such a quick fix, it would not be vented off from waste disposal sites, or burned off from said same and refineries. (Although I find the burning off at refineries is something that should be addressed but fart mouths like Obama seem to ignore.)

[Bagwan]

How much is it worth , Bob ?
And , how hard is it , really ?
How convenient is that convenience store if it costs five bucks to get to that store for that milk ?
You are likely to react by either buying more there , to spread the cost over more items , or drive the extra miles to the grocery store less often , buying more for less , to again , offset the cost .

At present , you can pull in anywhere and spend your cash for gas .
If that weren't possible , you would , undoubtedly , check before you left , that your tank was full .

Unless you are a career driver , or on a long distance trip , it is unlikely you fill up more than once a day .

So , when you get home , you have to plug in every day . It's ready in the morning , and cost a buck or two a day , rather than $100.00 bucks or so a week .
It's not so hard to conceive of there being a receptcle in which to plug in your vehicle at work , either .
That just doesn't sound so inconvenient to me .



High-tech firm Lucent technologies built a big plant right next to a landfill , where land was cheap as borscht .
They vent gas using two pipes driven under the mass , and use it to heat and light the whole plant .

Methane is natural gas .

It makes sense to be green .
But , when being green makes you some green it really makes sense .

[Mark]

Do you not somewhat evaluate your range in your "fossil" vehicle , too , when you glance at the gas gauge ?
It's really no different .

It's very different as battery recharge time is measured in hours, whereas I can drive 400 miles on a tank of diesel and then spend less than 5 minutes getting another tank of diesel and do the same again - for as long as I like.

With current battery technology once I've done my range, that's pretty much it for the day!

Liquid fuels are ideal, you just need a fuel which can be created using electricity - hydrogen is one such but it's difficult to handle.

[Bagwan]

It's very different as battery recharge time is measured in hours, whereas I can drive 400 miles on a tank of diesel and then spend less than 5 minutes getting another tank of diesel and do the same again - for as long as I like.

With current battery technology once I've done my range, that's pretty much it for the day!

Liquid fuels are ideal, you just need a fuel which can be created using electricity - hydrogen is one such but it's difficult to handle.

You're right about taking time to charge , but that need not be such a problem for most of us .

Think of it this way :
With an electric vehicle , presently , you have the same situation you'd have if your fuel tank on that diesel was much smaller .
And , if you had your own fuel source at home , it would be foolish to carry much more than you needed , being that it cuts greatly into your mileage , so a small fuel tank actually makes more sense than a large one .

The idea is to tailor the vehicle to suit the driver .

Now , try thinking about it like your cell phone .
You likely charge it up when at home , and rarely complain about how long it takes because it's been incorporated into your routine as an accepted parameter , charging overnight when you're asleep .

It's a much easier shift to a technology like this , simply because it all already exists .
Home and your workplace could have charging depots .
Hotels , motels and restaurants could easily adapt to this as well .

Batteries could be standardized , so a swap-out might even be possible , if long range was desired .



Of course , you could also have a natural gas conversion done , and head out on the road running on your family's sewage .
That's also doable .

[Daniel]

Batteries could be standardized , so a swap-out might even be possible , if long range was desired .

I've said this over and over and over on this forum but no one seems to understand that you could just have standard/modular batteries and the changeover could take minutes to do.

[Mark]

But we are used to cars which are all purpose. e.g. You may just drive 10 miles to work and back every day most of the time so would do fine on a single charge, but most people don't like the idea of paying a lot of money for a car which will do only that. As now and again you might want to drive 300 miles up to the Isle of Skye and back home again, you need to be sure that you aren't going to run out of juice when you're half way up the Bealach Na Ba.

[Daniel]

But we are used to cars which are all purpose. e.g. You may just drive 10 miles to work and back every day most of the time so would do fine on a single charge, but most people don't like the idea of paying a lot of money for a car which will do only that. As now and again you might want to drive 300 miles up to the Isle of Skye and back home again, you need to be sure that you aren't going to run out of juice when you're half way up the Bealach Na Ba.

Yes, but you'll merely pull up to the battery change over place and swap over batteries.

[Mark]

The situation we're facing in the UK is quite serious, more than people realise. A good number of our coal stations are coming to end of life and will be shut down - not just because they're too old but that the EU places a number of hours run time limit upon them! We've got precious little to fall back on apart from wind turbines, the problem with them is that quite often the contribution to the national grid is so small it doesn't even reach 1%, and we're putting all our hopes into that?!

The ideal is to reduce our consumption to sensible levels, but that can't happen for a generation or more, but we're facing a severe power shortage in less than 5 years!

I guess what will mostly happen is that we'll end up importing much of our electricity from France, generated using nuclear power, which we are supposedly so opposed to.

[Daniel]

I guess what will mostly happen is that we'll end up importing much of our electricity from France, generated using nuclear power, which we are supposedly so opposed to.

It's the NIMBY phenomenon in full swing :)

[Steve Boyd]

I guess what will mostly happen is that we'll end up importing much of our electricity from France, generated using nuclear power, which we are supposedly so opposed to.
The 2GW cross channel interconnector is already running at full capacity importing French nuclear electrcity. The new 1GW NedLink to Holland is about to start (or just has). I can't see that doing any exporting and these interconnectors are only equivalent to three decent sized power stations between them. Don't forget it isn't just the coal stations that are nearing the end of their lives, all our nuclear stations (except the PWR at Sizewell) are closing in the next few years.

[Mark]

Successive governments have known about this issue but haven't done anything about it as they wanted to avoid the protests that would result from building new coal or nuclear stations, when that's exactly what's required here.

Putting your head in the sand and murmuring 'oh renewables' isn't going to cut it.

[Bob Riebe]

Yes, but you'll merely pull up to the battery change over place and swap over batteries.

Oh ja sure.
Let's see the amount of gasoline that takes up the space of the average car battery will get on from forty to twenty miles depending on vehicle.
The space of the number of batteries neccessary in even an econobox, to go-- lets be optimistic-- fifty miles, would hold enough gasoline or diesel fuel to send a vehicle from 300-600 miles minimum.

So these battery filling stations to service the same number cars as the average gasoline station would be the size of a large railroad depot.

BRILLIANT!

[Bob Riebe]

It's the NIMBY phenomenon in full swing :)

Yes that is why the morons fight the far more intelligent coal fired plants so hard-- oh wait it is not their back yard is it?

[race aficionado]

the thread is baaaaack . . . . . :bandit:

It will ruffle some feathers but what the heck.

As you know, I am no fan of nuclear energy and hearing news like this one gives me hope.


Switzerland To Phase Out Nuclear Power
Switzerland has decided to make a ban on nuclear power plants permanent. The country's cabinet has called for a gradual decommissioning of its five nuclear power plants. Germany also has announced it would start shutting down its nuclear power program.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136669761/switzerland-to-phase-out-nuclear-power

[Mark]

And what will Switzerland do to get it's power? My guess is that it will probably import it, from the French nuclear power stations.

[Daniel]

and what will switzerland do to get it's power? My guess is that it will probably import it, from the french nuclear power stations.

nimby wins!!!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

And what will Switzerland do to get it's power? My guess is that it will probably import it, from the French nuclear power stations.

See, this is what people who don't want to face reality do. Deny that they approve of something, and then buy from someone who does approve of the idea.

We did the same here in Ontario. The idiot running the show here decided he didn't like coal being used for electricity, but since he dithered and green tech isn't of course doing more than producing a mouse's fart of power; we now import power at peak time from the US. Ohio to be precise...where they use LARGE amounts of good ole West Virginia Coal....and all the crap in the air that comes from this blows in the summer over Lake Erie into.....ONTARIO! so now we PAY for the juice AND get the fall out of crap!!!

[race aficionado]

My silver lining on the Swiss stance is that it will not be a 5-10 year transition - they are initially saying a 30 year transition, more than 1/2 of my lifetime - hopefully enough time to come up with a safer and abundant source of energy that can benefit all and not continue to pollute this planet of ours.

. . . just saying . . . .


:s mokin:

[Mark]

Nuclear Fusion?

[race aficionado]

Nuclear Fusion?

The Chinese think so . . .

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/05/26/china-cranks-up-heat-on-nuclear-fusion/

[race aficionado]

Ahhhh . . .here comes race with some more doomsday nuclear crap . . . as some would say . . .

I just saw this and even though some will question the source, i still feel that the nuclear disaster fallout is one of the "elephant in the room" topics that doesn't want to be talked about.

Is this true? I don't know. could it be true? I don't know either but I give it a strong possibility.

Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout


Impact seen as roughly comparable to radiation-related deaths after Chernobyl; infants are hardest hit, with continuing research showing even higher possible death count.

Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/9004-study-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-disaster-fallout)

[Malbec]

Ahhhh . . .here comes race with some more doomsday nuclear crap . . . as some would say . . .

I just saw this and even though some will question the source, i still feel that the nuclear disaster fallout is one of the "elephant in the room" topics that doesn't want to be talked about.

Is this true? I don't know. could it be true? I don't know either but I give it a strong possibility.

Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout



Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/9004-study-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-disaster-fallout)

Blimey, I pop into this forum after work and all I get is... more work...

Race, you might find this link more interesting, this is the original article published on the website of one of the authors:

http://janettesherman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/122011_IJHS_Article_42-1F.pdf

It pains me to see such poorly written articles frankly.

Its an incredibly crude paper comparing deaths across US cities in a period before and after the Fukushima reactor meltdown. There is no attempt to identify cause of increased deaths, in fact causality is something the paper is very careful to avoid.

The paper demonstrates that for infants mortality increased the further away the city was from Fukushima, with the east and southern coasts demonstrating the biggest increase. Overall mortality including adults was also worse the further away from Fukushima the city was, with LA being the sole exception. In other words, the closer you were to Fukushima the lower the increased death rate, not what one would expect if Fukushima was indeed the cause.

The paper also carefully avoids discussing what we know about radiation related health problems which are death or tissue injury following exposure to massive doses of radiation (something which not even workers inside the reactors have suffered) or increased risk of cancer which follows years after exposure. Neither are relevant in this case.

Given the location of most of the increased deaths which are along the Eastern seaboard of the US I would wonder if there was poor weather there in the spring of 2011 compared to 2010 as that is almost certainly the cause.

As for the contamination from dispersed material from the nuclear reactors there is not even an attempt to provide figures for maximum allowable levels, something that triggers alarm bells in my head as it is highly relevant in identifying whether fallout in the US could be linked to health issues. Its omission suggests to me that the paper was written with an agenda. From what I know the fallout levels in the US never came close to approaching maximum allowable levels.

At least the paper is honest in stating clearly that the US authorities failed to find even detectable levels of isotopes in the majority of samples, not surprising since the leak of material was in fact very low and mainly confined to the immediate seawater around the plant.

Sorry race but there's a reason why this paper hasn't sent shockwaves around the planet (which it would if it were true), its because its too poorly written to be taken seriously.

[donKey jote]

14000 extra deaths due to comparably low levels of radiation in the US in only a few weeks... how many million Japanese would they expect to be similarly affected?

Looks like false correlations or scaremongering bollocks to me :)

like malbec

[race aficionado]

See, I told you so, there goes race....

But I still believe that there is much we don't know about the damage done by the radioactivity that was released.

Thanks for the info Donks.

[donKey jote]

Thanks for the info Donks.
you mean malbec :)

[race aficionado]

Exactly. I just came home and was ready to try to save face . . . again.

Thanks malbec :)

Donks, and stop typing while you are working! :dozey:

[donKey jote]

I'm still on holiday :D

Back to work tomorrow though, at last ! :bandit: :)

[Steve Boyd]

Demonstrating causality is essential to validate satistical correlations. There is a strong correlation between the consumption of ice-cream and sunburn and between sunburn and some skin cancers. So should we ban ice-cream to prevent skin cancer? Obviously not as there is no possible causal link between ice-cream consumption and sunburn. There is a clear link between sunburn and those cancers so avoiding sunburn is good advice.