181–190 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means there are isotopes, including tritium, whose half-lives are long enough that they pose a risk to the health of anyone who happens to inhale or ingest them. The OP's dismissal of such risks is a bit facile.
But tritium pretty much can't be made in light water reactors, so there isn't going to be any in the released steam.
Wow, such a denial of reality. 'in control'? If anything I saw in the last hours, the thing is not in control. Diesel generators failed, a building exploded, core meltdowns going on, restoring of electricity failed, seawater used for cooling (how were they pumping it and are the pumps powerful enough to provide cooling over a longer period of time like days). Valves are not working, measurement of pressure is not pos…
> Two reactors are still OUT OF CONTROL. You may have noticed that they use defense-in-depth. Even though they were just hit by one of the biggest earthquakes ever and had several unthinkable things happen, there are still people inside the control room fixing it. If it were that "OUT OF CONTROL" that panic was required, they would have fled too. Sure, the reactor may be expensive to clean up and it may be damaged en…
The writer is not an expert on earth quakes. Making such a bold claim that nothing can go wrong is plainly false. Just because they are an expert in one area, does not mean they are an expert in all areas. There are already a number of people being treated for radiation poisoning. They have already admitted that there have been radiation releases above safe levels. I feel sorry for the engineers working so hard to fi…
Let's use the smarter, more innovative, and safer energy solutions available today. I agree. Let's replace all ~40-year-old reactors (like the ones breaking down in Japan) with modern, fail-safe nuclear designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Two reactors are still OUT OF CONTROL. You may have noticed that they use defense-in-depth. Even though they were just hit by one of the biggest earthquakes ever and had several unthinkable things happen, there are still people inside the control room fixing it. If it were that "OUT OF CONTROL" that panic was required, they would have fled too. Sure, the reactor may be expensive to clean up and it may be damaged en…
A few hours later we see that the reactor 2 of Fukushima 1 is severely damaged, radiation is leaking, most of the staff has been evacuated.
"As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose near MP6 was 4μSv/h. The increase of the radiation dose cannot be confirmed at this time.
As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose at the monitoring post in Fukushima Daini Power Station located approximately 10 km south of Fukushima Daiichi Power Station remains at the same level.
In light of the incidents that have occurred at Units 1 and 3, we are considering applying prevention measures to the wall of the reactor building to ventilate the hydrogen gas contained in Unit 2."
Sources:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sievert
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031405-e....
Hoping for the best for my friends in Tokyo and the rest of Japan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wrong type of power. I don't think you explained this. It seems as though you're just arguing about the cost of batteries, not a certain "type" of power. (what types of power are there, anyways? I only know of one: electricity. There are many different ways to generate it though..)
The power for a particular grid generally has two components, that which is always on and that which fluctuates through the day. To give you an example, an aluminum smelter will always use a fixed (and very large) quantity of electricity, day or night, rain or shine. As it is impractical to store electricity anywhere near the scale required to power these types of buildings, you need a power plant that can provide ch…
Or you could mine New York garbage and make diesel out of that.
This is a very well-written article. In the end, the author provides a nice collection of links to usable resources. If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear... http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthqua... http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclea...
Lobbist groups? https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did not work out too well, given the history of nuclear power plants in the US. When was the last one built? The list of cancelled nuclear power plants is impressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants...
Meanwhile, hundreds of coal-fired plants were built in their stead, and those are currently spewing radioactive waste into the air in normal operation.
The nuclear reactors seem to make much more trouble right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason people build power stations is that density of energy matters, not just quantity. Sure, we can replace our current energy sources with solar + wind + wave. What fraction of coastline needs to be covered with wave-driven generators, and what fraction of Earth's land area needs to be covered with solar or wind farms to get to our current energy generation levels? Last I saw the numbers for the US they weren'…
2/3rds of the earth is covered with water, Nothing would prevent putting solar on the oceans surface. And why would we cover land with panels, when we have rooftops that cover triple the area required to generate the base line you cite? Already, flexible rooftop material exist that serves a dual purpose of protecting the home, and producing power. Every problem you cite can be solved readily. Put even a 100th of the…
I note that you carefully ignored the issues of baseline power generation needs (e.g. the sun does not shine all the time) issues of power transmission from the middle of the ocean in your ocean proposal, the fact that putting solar in the ocean will significantly reduce the panel's useful life, and a host of other issues.
I'm quite prepared to believe I don't understand the science, but please don't pretend like you do. Handwaving serious problems away with "oh, if we just throw lots of money at them they'll disappear" is not "science".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should have read the article which explains why this explosion wasn't nearly as dangerous as it seemed to be.
it's the first post on his blog and we are certain he is no lobbyist. citing foreign experts you happen to know personally somehow is commonly used in popular science literature. a catastrophe not as bad as chernobyl can still be pretty bad.
Are we?