lyndon taylor wrote:I'M really anti nuclear but I was thinking, two horrific accidents in 30-40 Years?? of nuclear power out of how many plants? Imagine if we had never had nuclear power and all that electricity had to be produced by conventional means like coal, would we actually be better off environmentally???? Even wind power kills native birds, I guess solar power is the least dangerous, but basically right now most of our power world wide comes from coal, is coal safer and have a better track record for the environment than nuclear??
lyndon taylor wrote:Obviously looking to the future we need to focus on renewable energies, but if we look at the present crisis in Japan, the closing of all the nuclear plants has been 90%+ replaced by excess coal sourced power, not solar. So it is a very complicated issue, with no easy answers, while renewables are the future they still only amount to a very small amount of power produced, shutting nuclear plants isn't really going to be a boost for renewables in the short term as much as it will increase reliance on coal.
chownah wrote:I just read at Slashdot that a couple of weeks ago a contractor working on the Fukushima nuclear powerplant cleanup reported a measurement of the radioactivity of the water which is seeping into the ground (I think) as being 100 millisieverts. It turns out that the meter they used to measure it COULD ONLY GO UP TO 100 millisieverts!!!!!!!....now, with better equipment they are reporting that THE ACTUAL RADIATION LEVELS IS 1,800 MILLISIEVERTS!!!!!!!.......enough to kill a person in 4 hours!!!!!!
Yes, but how stupid is this really you might ask. Well, how stupid would it be if Ferrari put speedometers in there sports cars that only went up to 20 kilometers per hour?
I suppose that anyone can make a mistake but should we allow an industry to continue to exist when its quality assurance protocols can allow this to happen within the context of a 40 billion dollar plus cleanup of a nuclear disaster? Can we really be sure that this was just a case of utter and total incompetence or might it have been a concerted effort to lie about the severity to minimize the seriousness of what was happening?
There was also a report of a solar disaster. A Jaguar (automobile) was parked near a very tall and wide building whose entire front was curved and since that face of the building is all glass it just so happened that the building reflected the sunlight and concentrated it onto the Jaguar (automobile) and melted one of its panels.....really, that's what happened or at least what was reported. Total cost of repairing the damage from the solar panel disaster.......less than 1000 Pounds.
JustinJones wrote:We need to understand the importance of nuclear and other renewable sources of energy.. Each country must try encourage usage of solar and wind energy to decrease our dependency on nuclear and fossil fuels.
We face no greater environmental challenge than climate change. Nuclear power, though, is no panacea. What we can do, and must, is to invest in what we know will make a difference: clean up our power plants, make our economy more efficient and get power from the wind and sun.
lyndon taylor wrote:Wind and solar alone can never power the grid because they only work in sunlight or when the wind blows, they are great to supplement power that can be generated any time of day or night, but obviously a clean source of power for when the suns gone and the wind is not blowing is of the utmost importance. Fortunately we do use more power during daylight, so solar can go a long way to reduce reliance on other forms of power, but there are not, and presumably never will be batteries big enough to store gigawatts of power during the day from solar and use the power at night.
chownah wrote:Back to the batteries. Seems like there are about 230,000,000 cars on the US. The Tesla model S can be bought with an 85 kilowatt hour battery (standard equip is 65 kilowatt hours). If every vehicle had this same size battery they could collectively store 19,550,000,000,000.......that is 19,550 gigawatt hours. (Do check my math.) From this I would say that it is very likely that in the future there will on fact be enough battery storage to supply night time demand (even though with the advances like I mentioned above there will probably be no need to rely on batteries).
The province of Fukushima in northeast Japan, devastated nearly three years ago by the earthquake and tsunami that caused a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, has pledged to go 100 percent renewable by 2040.
The energy will be generated through local community initiatives throughout the province of nearly two million. Announced at a Community Power Conference held in Fukushima this week, it goes against Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s agenda to reboot nuclear power throughout the country.
Skip to 3:00
Some dark prospects for Fukushima from David Suzuki
chownah wrote:I could be wrong but the idea (from the video clip just presented above) that the collapse of the fourth reactor at Fukushima would be "bye bye Japan" or require the evacuation of west coast US is just fear mongering and I was disappointed to hear it voiced there as it tends to undermine the credibility of the event where it was voiced and the credibility of the person speaking it.
Kim OHara wrote:chownah wrote:I could be wrong but the idea (from the video clip just presented above) that the collapse of the fourth reactor at Fukushima would be "bye bye Japan" or require the evacuation of west coast US is just fear mongering and I was disappointed to hear it voiced there as it tends to undermine the credibility of the event where it was voiced and the credibility of the person speaking it.
Yes, it is problematic, but working out what information Suzuki is relying on is quite likely impossible. (Incidentally, I did find the earlier discussion of that clip - over on the other DW, starting at http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973&start=500#p194072. It doesn't add a lot, though.)
I think "Bye-bye Tokyo" is entirely credible. After all, there was talk of evacuating the city during the crisis - not that they could have done it.
Japan without Tokyo is nearly "Bye-bye Japan." California, though? Much less likely, and probably dependent on the details of the final collapse.
Yes, it is problematic, but working out what information Suzuki is relying on is quite likely impossible.
Kim OHara wrote:Chernobyl woke a few people up, but Fukushima has been a better eye-opener in that we have been given a good look into how and why it happened and then into the incompetence and denialism of the authorities. They really don't know how to fix it and, until they show that they do, we know that any future event can be just as disastrous and just as unfixable.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests