Phish
Flag this Post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Al I do not know enough about how long the 2000 rolling blackouts in CA lasted, but after a quick search (and based on my memory) those were for 2 days and ppl could prepare for them / knew how long they would be. Also as indicated that was indeed greed and market manipulation and not necessity. Japan is looking at much worse I believe.
I am sure ppl would adjust and I understand what you are saying about WANTS vs NEEDS, but when you start talking about wants vs needs you begin to tread a very fine line about the principles that this country was founded upon. Just keep that in mind....... |
People's attitudes are changing. Once you've lost 2 homes in a row to tornadoes, you're going to be used to severely compromised amenities.
People need more credit, or the fight is lost. People make the difference. They're the ones making positive choices in these trying times. I see a severe lack of leadership from the highest offices.
High levels of cesium found at former nuclear lab outside L.A.
High levels of cesium found at former nuclear lab outside L.A.
LOS ANGELES (Kyodo) -- High levels of radioactive cesium have been detected on the ground of a former nuclear facility in the suburbs of Los Angeles called the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where an experimental nuclear reactor suffered fuel melting in 1959, according to U.S. government data obtained Thursday.
The data, provided to local residents in February as an interim report by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is examining the extent of contamination in the area, show that radioactive cesium measured up to about 7,300 becquerels per kilogram of soil, or nearly 1,000 times the benchmark used by the agency.
The area was decontaminated after the nuclear accident, and the U.S. Department of Energy, which was dealing with research there, declared in the 1980s that the land could now be used as farmland or for residential purposes.
The decision to conduct a detailed study was made in December 2010 after strong demands were lodged by local residents who have expressed health concerns for a long time.
The findings suggest ... http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20120309p2g00m0in144000c.html
High levels of cesium found at former nuclear lab outside L.A.
LOS ANGELES (Kyodo) -- High levels of radioactive cesium have been detected on the ground of a former nuclear facility in the suburbs of Los Angeles called the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where an experimental nuclear reactor suffered fuel melting in 1959, according to U.S. government data obtained Thursday.
The data, provided to local residents in February as an interim report by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is examining the extent of contamination in the area, show that radioactive cesium measured up to about 7,300 becquerels per kilogram of soil, or nearly 1,000 times the benchmark used by the agency.
The area was decontaminated after the nuclear accident, and the U.S. Department of Energy, which was dealing with research there, declared in the 1980s that the land could now be used as farmland or for residential purposes.
The decision to conduct a detailed study was made in December 2010 after strong demands were lodged by local residents who have expressed health concerns for a long time.
The findings suggest ... http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20120309p2g00m0in144000c.html
The risk is just soooooooo extreme. A failure results in endangering populations for hundreds of miles around for hundreds of years! If we like our world the way it is (you can make that as local or global a context as you want) then:
A) There can be NO mistakes when generating nuclear power, especially with these horrible BWR designs that generate so much of today's nuclear power.
B) Human beings make mistakes.
C) Even beyond mistakes, there can be no ultranatural events which we can't/don't/can't afford to account for. How do we do that? We can't.
So what do we do?
Well, we can design and build much safer plants. Problem is they're still prohibitively expensive and we still don't have anything to do with our millions of tons of CURRENT nuclear waste, let alone anything new we generate. A very good case can also be made that the $$/KW spent on such capital intensive projects can be better spent being put towards renewables that are also capable of providing baseload energy storage and production. If you look at it as a zero sum game, and take risk into heavy account (even unforseeable risk... basically, let's assume they will fail.) with an eye towards the long-term, choosing essentially risk free renewables over trillions in risky nuclear investment makes a good amount of sense.
We can use less electricity by reconsidering and streamlining residential and industrial energy processes with new, innovative startups. :)
We can generate electricity with turbines alongside our nations interstates.
We can use modular hydraulic microturbines to create scaleable, low impact hydroelectric plants on even low head streams and rivers.
We can....
We can...
call our solar reps and companies and have them come to your home and START SAVING YOU MONEY TOMORROW!
80% of homes and businesses in the US can supply at least 60% of their power. Over 50% can supply all of their power (it's not the heat but the light).
The flaw, as it always is, that we rely on corporations to supply our energy. We don't need huge grids to supply solar. PUT THE FUCKING THINGS ON YOUR ROOF, not build huge plants int eh desert.
The corps are heavily subsidzed, especially when it comes to new solar projects and they are always huge projects that do not take into account rooftop. Solyndra is exactly this. designed for a large project.
instead start subsdizing homeowners and businesses to put rooftop solar on their properties.
Demand that all state building and municpal building install solar. (that way the burden of the taxpayers is reduced) then demand that the state start using electric vehicles saving the taxpayers money in many ways.
BTW< WalMart is going to 100% solar as we speak at all their stores) because they know that they don't need PG$E to supply their electricity. Even at a the reduced rate that large biz gets (and here we have SMUD who is wonderful when it comes to rebates etc)
call our solar reps and companies and have them come to your home and START SAVING YOU MONEY TOMORROW!
80% of homes and businesses in the US can supply at least 60% of their power. Over 50% can supply all of their power (it's not the heat but the light).
The flaw, as it always is, that we rely on corporations to supply our energy. We don't need huge grids to supply solar. PUT THE FUCKING THINGS ON YOUR ROOF, not build huge plants int eh desert.
The corps are heavily subsidzed, especially when it comes to new solar projects and they are always huge projects that do not take into account rooftop. Solyndra is exactly this. designed for a large project.
instead start subsdizing homeowners and businesses to put rooftop solar on their properties.
Demand that all state building and municpal building install solar. (that way the burden of the taxpayers is reduced) then demand that the state start using electric vehicles saving the taxpayers money in many ways.
BTW< WalMart is going to 100% solar as we speak at all their stores) because they know that they don't need PG$E to supply their electricity. Even at a the reduced rate that large biz gets (and here we have SMUD who is wonderful when it comes to rebates etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Al I do not know enough about how long the 2000 rolling blackouts in CA lasted, but after a quick search (and based on my memory) those were for 2 days and ppl could prepare for them / knew how long they would be. Also as indicated that was indeed greed and market manipulation and not necessity. Japan is looking at much worse I believe.
I am sure ppl would adjust and I understand what you are saying about WANTS vs NEEDS, but when you start talking about wants vs needs you begin to tread a very fine line about the principles that this country was founded upon. Just keep that in mind....... |
i agree but at the same time that was a completely different planet without many of the problems we currently face. the founding fathers did a good job but were unable to see what our society would become. i feel that we should be the founding fathers of a better society based on most of the principles that they set forward. humanity is still evolving and therefore so should our civilization. we should learn from our past not be limited by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martymcfly "Fukashima was a black swan event - force majure - as we call it in our industry. When you do a Risk Analysis / Management / Mitigation black swans are the ones that you usually can not plan for. But some people think that even that much risk exposure is too much....I - personally - do not think that but of course MANY do. "
This is a fallacy. The facility was supposed to be prepared for an earthquake, but it wasn't. Clearly it wasn't remotely prepared for the tsunami. Most importantly, it wasn't prepared for any kind of meltdown scenario. Having all the fuel on site, above the reactors... it's so far beyond irresponsible. There is a fundamental flaw to nuclear technology: the corporations that run them. Corporations do not have ethics, they have shareholders. A penny pinching, beat the last quarter mentality is simply incompatible with best practices in a situation with the massive risk factors nuclear presents. I think it is the height of arrogance, and a supreme misinterpretation of what occurred in Japan that gives you the mentality that you have right now. Your faith is unfounded. |
i agree. we aren't simply dealing with forces of nature here. we are dealing with forces of corporate irresponsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martymcfly "Fukashima was a black swan event - force majure - as we call it in our industry. When you do a Risk Analysis / Management / Mitigation black swans are the ones that you usually can not plan for. But some people think that even that much risk exposure is too much....I - personally - do not think that but of course MANY do. "
This is a fallacy. The facility was supposed to be prepared for an earthquake, but it wasn't. Clearly it wasn't remotely prepared for the tsunami. Most importantly, it wasn't prepared for any kind of meltdown scenario. Having all the fuel on site, above the reactors... it's so far beyond irresponsible. There is a fundamental flaw to nuclear technology: the corporations that run them. Corporations do not have ethics, they have shareholders. A penny pinching, beat the last quarter mentality is simply incompatible with best practices in a situation with the massive risk factors nuclear presents. I think it is the height of arrogance, and a supreme misinterpretation of what occurred in Japan that gives you the mentality that you have right now. Your faith is unfounded. |
So a 9.0 earthquake is not a black swan event? If you are saying that, I do not think you understand risk analysis / assessment.
All facilities are designed to withstand some amount of seismic activity, but if you think that every facility will be able to handle whatever wrath is handed to it, you are incorrect. This is basic structural engineering and seismic restraint design. It is unlikely that any facility is designed to handle the sequence of events that happened at Fukishima (major earthquake followed closely by major tsunami). While I am not a seismic expert, I do not believe ANY seismic design categories that require facilities to be designed to handle what happened in Japan. So again, if that is not a black swan, then what is?
But again it all comes back to risk management. You clearly think that NO risk is acceptable, but I do not. We can not live in a world where we are completely risk averse. It is impossible.
If the facility was properly prepared for the event - in terms of O&M procedures that were in place - its a totally different story - but I am talking from the context of nuclear being viable - not just what happened in Japan.
Forces of nature =/= "act of god"
Quote:
Originally Posted by martymcfly I see a severe lack of leadership from the highest offices. |
YEAH, ME TOO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixieland_Gutterman The risk is just soooooooo extreme. A failure results in endangering populations for hundreds of miles around for hundreds of years! If we like our world the way it is (you can make that as local or global a context as you want) then: A) There can be NO mistakes when generating nuclear power, especially with these horrible BWR designs that generate so much of today's nuclear power. B) Human beings make mistakes. C) Even beyond mistakes, there can be no ultranatural events which we can't/don't/can't afford to account for. How do we do that? We can't. So what do we do? Well, we can design and build much safer plants. Problem is they're still prohibitively expensive and we still don't have anything to do with our millions of tons of CURRENT nuclear waste, let alone anything new we generate. A very good case can also be made that the $$/KW spent on such capital intensive projects can be better spent being put towards renewables that are also capable of providing baseload energy storage and production. If you look at it as a zero sum game, and take risk into heavy account (even unforseeable risk... basically, let's assume they will fail.) with an eye towards the long-term, choosing essentially risk free renewables over trillions in risky nuclear investment makes a good amount of sense. We can use less electricity by reconsidering and streamlining residential and industrial energy processes with new, innovative startups. :) We can generate electricity with turbines alongside our nations interstates. We can use modular hydraulic microturbines to create scaleable, low impact hydroelectric plants on even low head streams and rivers. We can.... |
sums up my feelings nicely
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennyboy420 We can...
call our solar reps and companies and have them come to your home and START SAVING YOU MONEY TOMORROW! 80% of homes and businesses in the US can supply at least 60% of their power. Over 50% can supply all of their power (it's not the heat but the light). The flaw, as it always is, that we rely on corporations to supply our energy. We don't need huge grids to supply solar. PUT THE FUCKING THINGS ON YOUR ROOF, not build huge plants int eh desert. The corps are heavily subsidzed, especially when it comes to new solar projects and they are always huge projects that do not take into account rooftop. Solyndra is exactly this. designed for a large project. instead start subsdizing homeowners and businesses to put rooftop solar on their properties. Demand that all state building and municpal building install solar. (that way the burden of the taxpayers is reduced) then demand that the state start using electric vehicles saving the taxpayers money in many ways. BTW< WalMart is going to 100% solar as we speak at all their stores) because they know that they don't need PG$E to supply their electricity. Even at a the reduced rate that large biz gets (and here we have SMUD who is wonderful when it comes to rebates etc) |
requiring newly built homes to have enough solar panels to provide at least half of their own power.
imagine the impact of requiring contractors to make every spec house built fully self powered through renewables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennyboy420 BTW< WalMart is going to 100% solar as we speak at all their stores) because they know that they don't need PG$E to supply their electricity. Even at a the reduced rate that large biz gets (and here we have SMUD who is wonderful when it comes to rebates etc) |
Very interesting point to be made here.
Wal-Mart is special. Much like how the Texas curriculum generates the base for textbooks sold USA wide, Wal-Mart is such a consumer force, the economies of scale so large, that it can actually CHANGE the market with its own business practices. They are big enough to create their own weather, so to speak.
This is one reason Amory Lovins at RMI has been working with them. Wal-Mart has been implementing new ultra-efficient diesels in their transport fleet. Now these things were too expensive to start as one off jobs, but thanks to Wal-Marts buying power they created the economy of scale for the industry single handedly, which smaller businesses can now benefit from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Al Quote:
So a 9.0 earthquake is not a black swan event? If you are saying that, I do not think you understand risk analysis / assessment. All facilities are designed to withstand some amount of seismic activity, but if you think that every facility will be able to handle whatever wrath is handed to it, you are incorrect. This is basic structural engineering and seismic restraint design. It is unlikely that any facility is designed to handle the sequence of events that happened at Fukishima (major earthquake followed closely by major tsunami). While I am not a seismic expert, I do not believe ANY seismic design categories that require facilities to be designed to handle what happened in Japan. So again, if that is not a black swan, then what is? But again it all comes back to risk management. You clearly think that NO risk is acceptable, but I do not. We can not live in a world where we are completely risk averse. It is impossible. If the facility was properly prepared for the event - in terms of O&M procedures that were in place - its a totally different story - but I am talking from the context of nuclear being viable - not just what happened in Japan. |
But they didn't even design for Earthquakes they had OBSERVED in the last 100 years! Fukushima was designed for a M6.5.... less than the M7.1 they'd seen in the early 1900's. Why?? Economics. They didn't want to/couldn't pay for that extra million cubic yards of concrete and steel that would have upped their capacity to handle disaster a little bit.
...they also knocked down the 15m hill that fukushima initially stood on
Nobody is saying we have to eliminate risk entirely, yes, that's impossible.
What we CAN do is eliminate catastrophic risk. Eliminate industries where if everything goes wrong and everything fails, it results in a catastrophic event.
But to keep an industry alive where if everything goes wrong, a single incident destroys hundreds of square miles of land for a thousand years while also contributing to the pollutant stream that circles the entire globe?! Doesn't that seem kind of insane?
I just want to say something here....
It is COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE to put solar "everywhere" - ie every municipal building or every new rooftop / home / building. Do ppl not understand this!?!?!?!?!?!?! Jesus fucking christ. Solar is highly INEFFICIENT in many places, and on many sites - it simply does not work!!!
I am sorry but I get so frustrated when ppl say solar solar solar solar w.out doing event the MOST MINISCULE BASELINE background research on it.
It is COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE to put solar "everywhere" - ie every municipal building or every new rooftop / home / building. Do ppl not understand this!?!?!?!?!?!?! Jesus fucking christ. Solar is highly INEFFICIENT in many places, and on many sites - it simply does not work!!!
I am sorry but I get so frustrated when ppl say solar solar solar solar w.out doing event the MOST MINISCULE BASELINE background research on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixieland_Gutterman Quote:
Very interesting point to be made here. Wal-Mart is special. Much like how the Texas curriculum generates the base for textbooks sold USA wide, Wal-Mart is such a consumer force, the economies of scale so large, that it can actually CHANGE the market with its own business practices. They are big enough to create their own weather, so to speak. This is one reason Amory Lovins at RMI has been working with them. Wal-Mart has been implementing new ultra-efficient diesels in their transport fleet. Now these things were too expensive to start as one off jobs, but thanks to Wal-Marts buying power they created the economy of scale for the industry single handedly, which smaller businesses can now benefit from. |
Exactly, My city put solar on their rooftops of all the muni buildings....after WalMart installed theirs. And now, all the loar instllers are busy as hell. Fortunately we have a SOCIALIST power company (SMUD) here so they offer rebates and all that to help with solar installs. SMUD doesn't have shareholders or concerns with profit so they are trying to change things instead of trying to keep their market..
The prgram in FLA used up all it's money in a week and now people there are stuck with not beinga ble to get rebates etc. The cap was low, the Governor cut even more. But the energy cos still get theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixieland_Gutterman But they didn't even design for Earthquakes they had OBSERVED in the last 100 years! Fukushima was designed for a M6.5.... less than the M7.1 they'd seen in the early 1900's. Why?? Economics. They didn't want to/couldn't pay for that extra million cubic yards of concrete and steel that would have upped their capacity to handle disaster a little bit. ...they also knocked down the 15m hill that fukushima initially stood on Nobody is saying we have to eliminate risk entirely, yes, that's impossible. What we CAN do is eliminate catastrophic risk. Eliminate industries where if everything goes wrong and everything fails, it results in a catastrophic event. But to keep an industry alive where if everything goes wrong, a single incident destroys hundreds of square miles of land for a thousand years while also contributing to the pollutant stream that circles the entire globe?! Doesn't that seem kind of insane? |
Does Japan have seismic codes like the US? B.c in the US your design must be seismic compliant and it has nothing to do w. economics.
That said, are the US seismics codes based on the largest magnitude earthquakes ever recorded? Not an expert, but I do not believe so....Again, this comes down to basic statistical risk analysis. Obviously an event like fukishima may have us rethink some of these codes, but you can not fault anyone for building to the code that is in place at the time of design.
Does it seem kind of insane? How about this scenario - Right now the CDC / miltitary is probably conducting tests on all kinds of communicable dieseases that could probably wipe out the entire population. THis research is probably being done in many locations that we dont know about, possibly to find a cure in case it happens (probably thier reasoning). What if an earthquake / tornado hits one of these facilities and then all of a sudden this virus is unleashed accidentally destroying the worlds population. Should we stop all that kind of testing immediately?
Doesnt that seem kind of insane?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Al I just want to say something here....
It is COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE to put solar "everywhere" - ie every municipal building or every new rooftop / home / building. Do ppl not understand this!?!?!?!?!?!?! Jesus fucking christ. Solar is highly INEFFICIENT in many places, and on many sites - it simply does not work!!! I am sorry but I get so frustrated when ppl say solar solar solar solar w.out doing event the MOST MINISCULE BASELINE background research on it. |
Skyscrapers. Parking lots. Car roofs.
I'm not sure there are many places less suited to solar than gloomy germany, but on sunny days Germany now gets 25% of its power from solar. Key to this continuing to expand? Storage on good days for the bad days.
They're taking the hit too, because the way they're diving in is changing the production industry as well, much like wal-mart taking the hit. The demand is sooo high from civilians that they keep having to cut back the subsidies because they're getting used by so many people.
Now if your'e talking localized impacts from solar, that's definitely an issue as well. Some places just aren't suited for it. Some places you might have to change your environment (cut down a tree?) to make it happen.
In any case, the real key is going to be to continue improving PV efficiency. Once it is truly cheap enough, the conversion will happen fairly organically.
That, and to figure out how to PV parking lots. :)
Japan has the best seismic codes in the world, as evidenced by how many buildings withstood during the Fukushima quake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixieland_Gutterman Japan has the best seismic codes in the world, as evidenced by how many buildings withstood during the Fukushima quake. |
I think that reiterates my point of it being a black swan event then....
FWIW - BENNY - Right now I am doing an evaluation for putting PV at a local WTP. Matter of fact our PV Systems Engineering book is on my desk. BUt you know what - even w. subsidies - it STILL doesnt make sense!
Nuts, right?
Nuts, right?
Fukushima residents report various illnesses
source : al jaz
link: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia-pacific/2012/03/20123914421232874.html
This is a short video interview with a woman clearly effected by radiation poisoning who has vowed to be test subject to demonstrate the truth of the radiation health effects matter in and around Fukushima. Short and opinionated (al jaz clearly is, as most news organizations), but she and her body are not lying.
source : al jaz
link: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia-pacific/2012/03/20123914421232874.html
This is a short video interview with a woman clearly effected by radiation poisoning who has vowed to be test subject to demonstrate the truth of the radiation health effects matter in and around Fukushima. Short and opinionated (al jaz clearly is, as most news organizations), but she and her body are not lying.
Storage - Are batteries "sustainable" themselves? (ie tradiional lead/acid or NiCad)?
More to it than meets the eye....
More to it than meets the eye....
Cal Expo is PV'd. The parking lot has solar on it and has for about 15 years now.
And Happy Al, let's take Diablo Canyon for example (the closest Nuke to me now). They built in a Earthquake fault. They knew it when in design. But, years after the plant was comissioned they discovered that there are a fw otehr faults in that are and one runs right under the plant.
And this is another of the plants that is about to, or already has, passed it's life expectancy and the big question is, are they gonna give them another 20 years?
Same with San Onofre, be sure to read the article I posted above. Nobody is talking about this yet it happened and will happen over an over again.
And Happy Al, let's take Diablo Canyon for example (the closest Nuke to me now). They built in a Earthquake fault. They knew it when in design. But, years after the plant was comissioned they discovered that there are a fw otehr faults in that are and one runs right under the plant.
And this is another of the plants that is about to, or already has, passed it's life expectancy and the big question is, are they gonna give them another 20 years?
Same with San Onofre, be sure to read the article I posted above. Nobody is talking about this yet it happened and will happen over an over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Al Does it seem kind of insane? How about this scenario - Right now the CDC / miltitary is probably conducting tests on all kinds of communicable dieseases that could probably wipe out the entire population. THis research is probably being done in many locations that we dont know about, possibly to find a cure in case it happens (probably thier reasoning). What if an earthquake / tornado hits one of these facilities and then all of a sudden this virus is unleashed accidentally destroying the worlds population. Should we stop all that kind of testing immediately? Doesnt that seem kind of insane? |
In a locked down, ultra-top secret and ultra secure lab? Of which there are not many, but probably one or two? What's the impetus again, an F5 tornado? (Which can actually be fairly easily designed for via subterranean concrete bunker.) Doesn't require massive buildings. Doesn't require power to keep locked down. Doesn't generate millions of tons of toxic waste. Tens(hundreds?) of billions are spent to keep the one or two locked down locations as secure as possible. And even then, yes, it does seem kind of insane, and people lobby for the destroying of the few remaining vials of smallpox all damn time.
I'm sorry al, but that's a ridiculous analogy when comparing to boiling water with ever-trying-to-melt, ultra-environmentally-persistent nuclear fuel in massive facilities scattered in hundreds of above ground sites with million ton cooling pools positioned over active reactors like loaded guns scattered across the globe.
"So a 9.0 earthquake is not a black swan event? If you are saying that, I do not think you understand risk analysis / assessment."
A NUCLEAR FACILITY HAS TO BE GOOD ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND A "BLACK SWAN" ACT OF GOD, OR IT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO BE OPERATING ANY OTHER DAY.
THAT is the risk. The risk is that a giant earthquake happens. That is EXACTLY what the facility needs to be built to withstand.
That you claim expertise in the arena of risk analysis/management yet can't wrap your head around just why Fukushima failed, does not give me very much confidence. Black Swan events define risk management. If the consequences of the event are total annihilation, then you aren't really mitigating the risk, are you? You're simply analyzing it.
Management means mitigation. Mitigation doesn't mean hoping for the best. Get your cranium out of your rectum!
A NUCLEAR FACILITY HAS TO BE GOOD ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND A "BLACK SWAN" ACT OF GOD, OR IT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO BE OPERATING ANY OTHER DAY.
THAT is the risk. The risk is that a giant earthquake happens. That is EXACTLY what the facility needs to be built to withstand.
That you claim expertise in the arena of risk analysis/management yet can't wrap your head around just why Fukushima failed, does not give me very much confidence. Black Swan events define risk management. If the consequences of the event are total annihilation, then you aren't really mitigating the risk, are you? You're simply analyzing it.
Management means mitigation. Mitigation doesn't mean hoping for the best. Get your cranium out of your rectum!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Al Storage - Are batteries "sustainable" themselves? (ie tradiional lead/acid or NiCad)?
More to it than meets the eye.... |
I'm talking molten salts, reservoirs... massive energy storage. Batteries are for gearheads.
Sweet, benny, so lets bring some MWs online and get them decommissioned. Have you seen me saying anything but? Go back to my first post in this thread - by FERC regs - we will not take generation off line unitl it is replaced. I dont have a problem replacing nucs and I think the old ones SHOULD BE decommisioned but until we USE MUCH MUCH less power or we generate MUCH MUCH more power from someplace else, those nucs arent going away. Putting up solar over every square inch isnt feasible, or the answer either...
Does anyone have that link that frunobulax posted a while back. Great read re solar / wind and the amount needed....
Does anyone have that link that frunobulax posted a while back. Great read re solar / wind and the amount needed....
MARTY - Again, You MINIMIZE risk, you do not ELIMINATE it. Mitigate means to make less severe, it does not mean elimination.
Again, Can someone just answer one questions for me - if we are too shut down all nucs tomorrow - WHERE DOES THE POWER COME FROM in the mean time? That is all I want to know...
I have not seen ANY feasible solutions to that yet, and that is all I ask / bring up or ask to be considered.
Massive energy storage, can that be done locally?
And sure, maybe my analogy is ridiculous, but how about a rogue person getting ahold of them? Disgruntled employee. Much more feasible, no??? That would change the analogy up quite a bit....
Again, Can someone just answer one questions for me - if we are too shut down all nucs tomorrow - WHERE DOES THE POWER COME FROM in the mean time? That is all I want to know...
I have not seen ANY feasible solutions to that yet, and that is all I ask / bring up or ask to be considered.
Massive energy storage, can that be done locally?
And sure, maybe my analogy is ridiculous, but how about a rogue person getting ahold of them? Disgruntled employee. Much more feasible, no??? That would change the analogy up quite a bit....
I don't think anyone's saying we shut down everything tomorrow... all progress stops when you consider it from that angle, because it's impossible... so the status quo simply marches on.
But beginning to look good and hard at decommissioning the riskiest industry on the planet would be a better start than renewing every nuclear license that comes across the NRC's desk.
The feasible solution is a gradual phase out of nuclear as we focus money, energy, research, and time into developing our alternatives.
Molten salts wouldn't have a huge footprint, see no reason why it couldn't be done locally.
"Nuclear power plants are located close to sources of water, which is used as a coolant to handle the waste heat discharged by the plants. This means that water contaminated with radioactive material is often one of the problems to arise after a nuclear disaster. Researchers at Australia's Queensland University of Technology (QUT) have now developed what they say is a world-first intelligent absorbent that is capable of removing radioactive material from large amounts of contaminated water, resulting in clean water and concentrated waste that can be stored more efficiently."
http://www.gizmag.com/radioactive-clean-up-absorbent-qut/20353/
I'm very curious about applying this to some of our radioactive pit lakes on some of the uranium mines we're remediating....
But beginning to look good and hard at decommissioning the riskiest industry on the planet would be a better start than renewing every nuclear license that comes across the NRC's desk.
The feasible solution is a gradual phase out of nuclear as we focus money, energy, research, and time into developing our alternatives.
Molten salts wouldn't have a huge footprint, see no reason why it couldn't be done locally.
"Nuclear power plants are located close to sources of water, which is used as a coolant to handle the waste heat discharged by the plants. This means that water contaminated with radioactive material is often one of the problems to arise after a nuclear disaster. Researchers at Australia's Queensland University of Technology (QUT) have now developed what they say is a world-first intelligent absorbent that is capable of removing radioactive material from large amounts of contaminated water, resulting in clean water and concentrated waste that can be stored more efficiently."
http://www.gizmag.com/radioactive-clean-up-absorbent-qut/20353/
I'm very curious about applying this to some of our radioactive pit lakes on some of the uranium mines we're remediating....
No More Fukushima’s Rally & March (Shut Down Indian Point Now! NYC)
http://occupythebronx.org/2012/03/no-more-fukushimas-rally-march-shut-down-indian-point-now-nyc/
No More Fukushima’s Rally & March (Shut Down Indian Point Now! NYC)
Rally & March – 311 Action NY “We are Pregnant with Fear of Radiation”
Rally in Union Square. March to Central Park:
Call for Action – March 11, 2012 1PM
Join our protest against nuclear power.
<snip>
http://311newyork.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/311action-ny1.jpg
http://311newyork.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/action-3-11-new-york-a-march-to-liberate-our-bodies-flier-1/
http://occupythebronx.org/2012/03/no-more-fukushimas-rally-march-shut-down-indian-point-now-nyc/
No More Fukushima’s Rally & March (Shut Down Indian Point Now! NYC)
Rally & March – 311 Action NY “We are Pregnant with Fear of Radiation”
Rally in Union Square. March to Central Park:
Call for Action – March 11, 2012 1PM
Join our protest against nuclear power.
<snip>
http://311newyork.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/311action-ny1.jpg
http://311newyork.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/action-3-11-new-york-a-march-to-liberate-our-bodies-flier-1/
Long list of events world-wide.
Some events have already started, for example,
a 19-day peacewalk from New Jersey to Vermont started March 2.
http://antinuclearbr.blogspot.com/2012/02/march-11-global-fukushima-action-day_15.html
March 11 - Global Fukushima Action Day 2012 - Calendar of Events
Em Português | En Español | Auf Deutsch | En français
In English: updated march 2, 2012, 7:30 PM
EVENTS CALENDAR FOR THE DAY 11 MARCH 2012,
1 YEAR ANNIVERSARY THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN FUKUSHIMA
104 cities - 15 countries:
Germany, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, United States, France,
England, Japan, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries
<snip very long list>
http://antinuclearbr.blogspot.com/2012/02/march-11-global-fukushima-action-day_15.html
Some events have already started, for example,
a 19-day peacewalk from New Jersey to Vermont started March 2.
http://antinuclearbr.blogspot.com/2012/02/march-11-global-fukushima-action-day_15.html
March 11 - Global Fukushima Action Day 2012 - Calendar of Events
Em Português | En Español | Auf Deutsch | En français
In English: updated march 2, 2012, 7:30 PM
EVENTS CALENDAR FOR THE DAY 11 MARCH 2012,
1 YEAR ANNIVERSARY THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN FUKUSHIMA
104 cities - 15 countries:
Germany, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, United States, France,
England, Japan, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries
<snip very long list>
http://antinuclearbr.blogspot.com/2012/02/march-11-global-fukushima-action-day_15.html
I jsut think it is very easy for ppl like Marty to look at this in hindsight and say it was either preventable or shouldnt have happened. It is very easy to say those things now, but when you look at it from the lens of designer, you do everything possible to address every possible scenario that goes through your mind. But of course there always lies the possibility of something happening that has never happened before ...and thats what happened.
I also think it is very easy to say stop nuc now / going forward but when you look back at the history of nuclear engineering you actually see what a major accomplishment it was and how beneficial it was before what happened in Japan - do we want to give this up, or do we try to find a better way to do this? Do we just give up this technology or do we work to make it better? Is it time to say good bye if every risk associated w. a reactor can not be fully and unequivocally be eliminated? Is that is what is required in this day and age? Again, I personally do not believe that. If we completely gave up on nuc now would that also mean we give up on, say, thorium based reactors?
I also think it is very easy to say stop nuc now / going forward but when you look back at the history of nuclear engineering you actually see what a major accomplishment it was and how beneficial it was before what happened in Japan - do we want to give this up, or do we try to find a better way to do this? Do we just give up this technology or do we work to make it better? Is it time to say good bye if every risk associated w. a reactor can not be fully and unequivocally be eliminated? Is that is what is required in this day and age? Again, I personally do not believe that. If we completely gave up on nuc now would that also mean we give up on, say, thorium based reactors?