Japan: "No cause for alarm"

In article , nunyabidnits@eternal-
september.invalid says...

No I do not. You said "maximum possible natural disaster threat". You
did not say "maximum possible earthquake or tsunami threat". This may
come as a shock to you but people cannot read your mind.


Who can reliably predict earthquake energy. Give us a name.


So you think that problems at nuclear power plants result from the
"inaccuracy" of something? If so what? You argued that power plants
must be operated under "the very latest and safest methods". Are you
now retracting that and saying that established methods are all right as
long as they are "accurate"?

You keep using these words. I think they do not mean what you think
they mean. Are you by any chance not a native speaker of English?
 
In article ,
Nad R wrote:



Power lines are comparatively cheap and efficient. They leak very
little energy. The only reasonable alternative that I see at present is
coal. There would be a tremendous cost in shipping coal in and ash out.
The air pollution, of course, would just stay in the city and kill/maim
lots of people.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
On 3/22/2011 7:29 AM, sf wrote:

My guess is that some official will probably kill himself because he
didn't do something right. They do weird stuff like that over there. I
wish this was a more common practice in our country. :-)
 
In article , nunyabidnits@eternal-
september.invalid says...

It's called "sarcasm". There has been an ongoing debate for decades on
how to deal with nuclear waste. Are you seriously expecting us to
believe that you are so totally brilliant that you are the only one to
ever come up with this "encase it in concrete" idea as a permanent means
of disposal of nuclear waste?


What has been done "at least once"? Encasing something in concrete?
What has been "encased in concrete"? If you mean the Chernobyl reactor,
the reality is far different from what you believe it to be.


So what "safer reactor designs" have you advocated?


You have not advocated any "safer reactor design" just some vague notion
about "newest procedures".

Your "nitpicking argumentative conversation" is a normal person's
desperate attempt to figure out what you're on about.

You use phrases analogous to "cooking should be done with the most
accurate pepper" and then expect people to figure out what you're
talking about.


Another word that you're having trouble with?
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:20:19 -1000, dsi1
wrote:


Officials do kill themselves over here, but we call it suicide.
Unfortunately, the ones here who should be committing seppuku never
think they were wrong and everything is just peachy.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
Re: [email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:


Either you read the news or you didn't. Disengenous response noted. Or maybe
you live in a cave. Or you can Google it as I suggested before if you really
don't know what I'm talking about. Most everyone else does.

clip

If you wouldn't pick nits with a condescending attitude and argumentative
intent you wouldn't get smartass remarks.


No waste, no further leakage. It worked in Chernobyl. That is the ultimate
resolution. Not very technical but apparently effective.


MINOR damage? ROFLMAO! You really DO live under a rock!


Now that is easily the dumbest-assed remark I've heard all month. Are you
not taking your meds or something?


Seriously? Tell ya what, mister expert nuclear dude, you go in there and
clean it up, and hire people to help you.


Please refer to the last disaster where significant radioactive material was
released. You act like you have intimate knowledge of all things nuclear, so
you should know. If not and you're just blowing smoke up our asses, then go
do your own homework.
 
Re: [email protected]

Pete C. wrote:


1. I don't assume this problem is insurmountable in the future in both
better transmission and storage technology
and
2. If half our electricity could be generated that way it would still be a
massive improvement over the 20 percent or so "green" energy currently being
produced, and go a long way towards eliminating dependence on foreign oil. I
also don't discount the other sustainable sources such as wind and wave
energy. Between the three they could replace the majority of fossil fuels
needs used for electricity. However it appears that wind and wave energy
both still need improvements in transmission availability to make it work.
..
There are some extremely efficient solar arrays in use right now already
providing a substantial portion of energy to major countries like Spain.
Note the concentrating tower system and the thermal storage systems already
in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain



No, that will require more efficient and practical methods of energy
storage. However the technology already exists to replace a substantial
portion of oil and coal dependent electricity.

You have to start somewhere. Somewhere does not have to mean not doing it
until it's a 100 percent solution. That would be illogical.


Not according to the Wiki article which cites a molten salt solution in
Granada.


Somehow Spain has already managed to exceed a "tiny percentage", whatever
that is. The difference in countries like Spain and Brazil is that they have
made extensive, sweeping commitments to better energy technology and have
national cohesive energy policies, while in the US we have nothing like
that.

Better technology will come around that will drastically reduce the
footprint. There are already developments in photovoltaics which promise to
greatly improve efficiency. Again, those improvements are at the mercy of
whether nations will commit to sustainable technology under a comprehensive
national energy policy. It seems politics stands more in the way of progress
in the US than science.

I'd like to see some recent cites on that statement.


So then do the math on how much power could come from solar compared to how
much comes from fossil fuels right now, and tell me whether it's not a
massive net gain.


And science has always prevailed when given the chance and proper support,
but in this country, politicians love to gin people up into being suspicious
of science. And 60 percent is a whopping improvement. Think about how many
less megatons of CO2 would be pumped into the air every year if we hit that
mark.

That's presumptive based on current photovoltaics, right? And there is
plenty of space to do it in this huge country of ours.

Agreed. That is something people can do right now, today.

There are entire factories already in existence in this country and
elsewhere which take little or no power from the grid. There is new
technology being developed in which buildings can actually be coated in a
photovoltaic paint. The notion that our structures can be energy producers
is already a reality which is under development. I have no problem with it.
As with many things, the cost will go down as production goes up.

MartyB
 
Re: [email protected]

Doug Freyburger wrote:


I'm in favor of safe nuclear power. IMO safe does not include the relatively
ancient designs now in use, many of which are not designed to withstand the
maximum earthquake potential in their locations or in consideration of
secondary disasters. Meanwhile much safer recent designs languish unbuilt
because of anti-nuclear hysteria. But in the case of a reactor complex like
Fukushima which is demonstrably unstable and unsafe under natural disaster
conditions, rebuilding it would be stupid and futile IMO. Replacing it in a
safer location with a safer design, now that makes sense to me.
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:30:42 -1000, dsi1
wrote:


My point was the they were already acting calm, but they were being
treated as if they were running around like chickens with their heads
cut off.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On 24/03/2011 2:13 AM, Nad R wrote:
Oh dear , wotta emotive wanker

There also other systems of
So you find a slow poisoning via it borne participles leading to
physical failures better ?
Suffocation is an unattractive way to choke

That isn't any more germain than you pushing a misinformed agenda


--
X-No-Archive: Yes
 
In article , nunyabidnits@eternal-
september.invalid says...

You made a blanket assertiona about what engineers know. Being as to
how I have a piece of paper from Georgia Tech and a Fortune 500 business
card that say that I'm an "engineer" I believe I am qualified to comment
on what engineers do and do not know.

If you meant "reactor designers" you should have said it.


About engineering, I suspect that I am more astute than a theoretical
physicist. Doesn't take much. You used to be able to find Pauli in a
building by following the trail of broken equipment.

Bill Nye on the other hand, is an engineer but I don't know the basis
for his argument.


About reactors, quite possibly.


Nope, a realistic understanding of the difference between physics and
engineering. I have degrees in both and so, unlike you, actually know
the difference.


The discussion should be about facts, not about credentials. If you
want to appeal to authority go right ahead, but use authorities who
actaully are, not people who are outside of their field.
 
In article , nunyabidnits@eternal-
september.invalid says...

Show us one baseload solar plant that has been in reliable operation for
ten years. The largest in the world, the last I heard, was about 80MW.
Further, most of them do not produce power at night, which may be OK in
Southern California where it doesn't get cold, but in New England it
would be a showstopper.

It's easy to say "rah,rah solar", it's proving more difficult to
deliver.


There are transmission lines all over the place. What leads you to
believe that they are any kind of "environmental concern"?


Oh, the horror, you've actually said something that I agree with.
 
Nad R wrote:

I guess you forgot about the recent coal waste retention pond that broke
and flooded an entire town with very toxic waste. Add to that the many
coal miners killed, mountaintop removal mining, etc., along with the
mercury and radiation released by the coal plants and it's pretty clear
that nuclear is far cleaner and safer.

The used fuel issue was solved long ago and reprocessing of the used
fuel means minimal need to mine more raw materials and also means
minimal amounts of actual waste to deal with. Newer reactors can
apparently utilize much material that would otherwise be considered
waste.

The bottom line is that nuclear power is the only "green" energy source
we have that is viable and reliable at utility scale today and able to
replace essentially all coal burning and nat gas burning power plants,
as well as provide charging electricity for EVs that can offset a great
deal of oil consumption.
 
Re: [email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:


Yeah right. If you say so, mister witty.


Yeah, that's exactly what I said, right.

Moron.

You never did cite your qualifications to make such expansive statements on
nuclear power and reactor design. I'm waiting...


Were you the one asking me if I can read and write English? I agreed with
another poster who was describing more current designs and pointed out that
politics has prevented their implementation. But in your frenzy to diss me
on every word I type, I'm sure you just overlooked it.



Read. Are you saying there are no newer designs which would be safer than
the old ones in use today? Yeah, I'm certain that is exactly what you are
saying.

Note that is sarcasm. I'm trying to be as cool as you.


Normal! ROTFLMAO! I don't see anyone else jumping in on your bandwagon or
likewise feeling the need to seek out tiny semantic issues and pretend they
are huge major differences.

Now that's just fucking stupid. Do you realize what you just typed? ROFL!


Incorrect sentence construction noted.
 
sf wrote:

The facts:

Nuclear power -

There has never been any sort of civilian casualty event involving any
commercial nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants are very "green",
they emit no CO2 or other pollution and do not require constant mining
or drilling and transport of fuel. Nuclear energy is the only "green"
energy source that is viable now at utility scale and can replace the
capacity of all coal and nat gas fired power plants. Nuclear energy can
also provide cheap charging electricity for EVs and as a result offset
substantial oil consumption as well.

Coal power - Many miners have been killed and will continue to be killed
mining coal every day. Large amounts of energy are consumed transporting
coal to power plants. Coal burning power plants release CO2, mercury and
radioactive particles from the coal. Coal mining generates large
quantities of toxic waste in retention ponds, one of which recently
failed and flooded an entire town with toxic waste.

Nat. Gas power - Cleaner stack emissions than coal fired power plants,
however drilling for nat. gas creates toxic waste and "hydro-fracking"
appears to be destroying and contaminating ground water. Still emits
some pollution and C02.

Solar power - Simply not viable at utility scale due to issues in
collection efficiency, and the lack of viable utility scale storage
technology to store daytime collected energy for night use. The only
viable model for solar energy is a distributed generation model where
the utility installs and maintains solar arrays on existing rooftop
space i.e. your roof, to offset peak daytime demand. Simply not capable
of providing base load with current solar technology. Solar PV panels
have 20-25 year life spans then are essentially scrap for recycling,
requiring new PV manufacture.

Wind power - Intermittent generation night and day, not very
predictable, and due to the lack of utility scale energy storage
technology, not able to provide base load. A German utility with
significant installed wind generation capacity did the analysis and
determined that for any amount of installed wind generation capacity,
say 1MW, you had to keep 90% of that capacity online in conventional
generation i.e. a 900KW nat. gas turbine idling, ready to pickup the
base load from the wind generation when the wind wasn't blowing.

Hydroelectric power - Conventional falling water hydroelectric
generation is well proven, however there are limited locations where it
can be installed. Various eco-issues around fish migration, land
flooded/impounded to provide source lakes, etc. essentially eliminates
the possibility of much new hydroelectric generation.

Tidal power - There is a tremendous amount of energy available in ocean
tides, and it is relatively simple and "green" to harness. Unfortunately
this source has been somewhat overlooked due to the hype over the much
less efficient and much less viable solar and wind technologies, so
development has lagged. Tides are more consistent than wind and are
useable day and night unlike solar. Tidal generation does not require
big visible towers and has little or no effect on area marine life.
Tidal generation equipment is easily serviced and can have near infinite
service life with maintenance.

Geothermal power - Generally "green", but only useable in very limited
areas. No large scale future.

The bottom line:

Expand nuclear power now, eliminate coal pollution, eliminate nat. gas
drilling and hydro-fracking, provide cheap charging power for EVs
greatly reducing oil consumption, provide cheap power for home heating
(heat pump) eliminating nat. gas and oil consumption for home heating.
Invest in development and deployment of tidal generation to handle
energy demand growth and take over for existing nuclear plants as they
reach the end of their service life.
 
In article , [email protected]
says...

The thing you have to remember is that the only people who really _knew_
what was going on were those 180 guys in the plant trying to get things
under control, and they had more important things to do than give
detailed reports to bureaucrats and reporters.

Near as I can tell the Japanese government gave them whatever they asked
for, stayed off their backs otherwise, and tried to avoid panic. I
don't see anything exceptionable in that approach. And now the
situation seems to be under control, the radiation release was
detectable but not likely to cause major problems for anybody except
possibly farmers within a few miles of the facility, and we see that
even in a worst case disaster going beyond anything that the plants were
designed to deal with, the worst that happens is that they render
themselves inoperable and leak a small amount of radiation.

But no, according to those who would protect us, we must panic and be
very afraid because the bogeyman is coming to get us.
 
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:26:40 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Yeah, it's green until it's not green. What nuclear has going for it
is that it can produce a lot of energy right now... and then we have
all that nuclear waste to deal with afterward. If you haven't changed
your mind after 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Japan - then your head is
planted firmly in the sand and you will advocate for nuclear power no
matter what happens.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
Back
Top