Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[N.U.]

len, please stop talking out of your ass.

This is the largest earthquake known about in Japan's history. Due to the massive differences in Japan now and Japan hundreds of years ago, you cannot look at eyewitness reports as being reflective of any size of earthquake. Feudal Japan also did not have 40% of their coastline covered by seawalls. Seawalls designed to protect from 25 foot tsunamis, not the 33 foot tsunamis they got hit with.

There comes a point where designing for the most likely top end earthquake is all you can expect to do. The Japanese, BTW, designed their reactors to be the most earthquake-resistant in the world. Yes, they should feel shame for making their reactors the most earthquake proof in the world. Yes, they should feel shame that the 180 workers who stayed behind to, literally, try and save the rest of the region will all most likely die painfully.

It's a shame we're seeing a domino effect and assuming it was the earthquake.

[lentower]

len, please stop talking out of your ass.

please get your head out of the sand.
now, can we get back to more polite
discussion without the off-point verbal pyrotechnics?

this is neither the largest earthquake
(yes, largest near Japan, measured with seismographs),
nor the largest tsunami in Japan's history.

domino effect?  not an unknown one.
when there is a large earthquake in many places, a tsunami results.
In the Japan Trench, it hits Japan shortly thereafter.
this appears to have been known and taken into account with these
reactors.  it's not designing for the maximum possible
domino effect that is the problem.

it's designing for the 'most likely' disaster instead of the
maximum possible that killed those 180+ workers.
how many more deaths happen will depend on just how much
worse this disaster gets.  
(100,000s of cancer deaths over the years are likely.)
as will how much land is unuseable for a century+.
how long radioactive fish are pulled out of the sea.
how long until people can come back inside the evacuation zone.
etc.

reactors should not be built, if they can't survive the maximum possible
natural disaster, and non-nuclear terrorism.
the costs are much too high.

oh, the maximum possible earthquakes and tsunamis
can be deduced from geologic principles, as well as
careful analysis of of eyewitness reports from Feudal Japan.
the differences can and have been accounted for in those reports.

'unknown' domino effects can be designed for.
just list the maximum possible kind of each disaster for a locale,
and see what happens if two, three, four of them all happen,
in all orders,
while a reactor is operating, or down/broken by the first one.

(what happens if a nuclear bomb goes off too close to a nuclear
reactor, just can't be stopped by any design we can afford to build.)

[Agonistes]

you just plain can't build a reactor that cannot be destroyed in a natural disaster.  nor is it possible to prepare effectively for the 'most likely'' disaster without a goddamned time machine.

first, i'm not sure i would be comfortable knowing mankind could produce something indestructible.  we haven't yet.  and secondly, anything can be disassembled.  this isn't an issue pro or con nuclear power in the first place, it's about the reality of what's going on.

it's pretty easy to point out what one thinks should have been done, and what should be done now, but the reality is what it is.  casting shame from a warm dry place in environmentalist rhetoric isn't really palatable, nor particularly effective.  nor is it accurate.

[N.U.]

len, please stop talking out of your ass.

please get your head out of the sand.
now, can we get back to more polite
discussion without the off-point verbal pyrotechnics?

this is neither the largest earthquake
(yes, largest near Japan, measured with seismographs),
nor the largest tsunami in Japan's history.

domino effect?  not an unknown one.
when there is a large earthquake in many places, a tsunami results.
In the Japan Trench, it hits Japan shortly thereafter.
this appears to have been known and taken into account with these
reactors.  it's not designing for the maximum possible
domino effect that is the problem.

it's designing for the 'most likely' disaster instead of the
maximum possible that killed those 180+ workers.
how many more deaths happen will depend on just how much
worse this disaster gets.  
(100,000s of cancer deaths over the years are likely.)
as will how much land is unuseable for a century+.
how long radioactive fish are pulled out of the sea.
how long until people can come back inside the evacuation zone.
etc.

reactors should not be built, if they can't survive the maximum possible
natural disaster, and non-nuclear terrorism.
the costs are much too high.

oh, the maximum possible earthquakes and tsunamis
can be deduced from geologic principles, as well as
careful analysis of of eyewitness reports from Feudal Japan.
the differences can and have been accounted for in those reports.

'unknown' domino effects can be designed for.
just list the maximum possible kind of each disaster for a locale,
and see what happens if two, three, four of them all happen,
in all orders,
while a reactor is operating, or down/broken by the first one.

(what happens if a nuclear bomb goes off too close to a nuclear
reactor, just can't be stopped by any design we can afford to build.)

What you're saying, len is we should go back to coal and oil-fired power plants. Whether that was your intent or not, that is exactly what you're pushing for with these laughably panicky, uninformed, and unsupported talking points.

I really think we should let this disaster in Japan fully disasterfy before discussing the future of US energy policy. I also, in no way, believe that fossil fuel energy is less harmful that nuclear energy. The IAEA doesn't, either. Nobody can prove THAT point, but that seems to be exactly what len is saying.

now len, I would like some links supporting the "facts" you have put out in here or are you simply 'soap-boxing'?

[Agonistes]

fossil fuels AND nuclear technology both exist right now because of two reasons; economics being the big one, of course, and also because well, it is the best we have, in production.

the problem isn't with supply, regarding either of these fuels; it is demand.  demand, demand, demand.  the billions of people waving cash and demanding power NOW, not in ten years when len discovers cold fusion, or we have another reasonably foolproof way of providing it, like biotech, whatever that is.  they want cars NOW, not in five years when they can run electrically or on poo or whatever.

of course the people making money on it now are all too happy to provide, but demand = supply.  always has, always will.


unhappily for the environmentalists, of course, it is usually the military that is the main proponent of technological change and refinement.  when the army stops using gasoline, there will be a demand for tech that supports whatever fuel replacement, and so will follow the rest of the culture.

[CeeGBee]

I heard an interesting commentary piece on the radio yesterday morning - I wish I could quote the
exact numbers, because they were (say I, taking them on faith) eye-opening.  The guy (on the
tree-hugging, uber-Lefty radio show) was comparing the deaths-per-unit-of-electricity-generated
by nuclear, coal and oil...  including mine-cave-ins, well explosions and the like, and even setting
aside the impossible-to-measure health costs of fossil-fuel exhaust, nuclear power comes out far
ahead...

Solar and wind are clearly the way to go, but for now, I'm happy with nukes (which get safer every
year as they improve containment, backups, sensors and fail-safe systems...)

[N.U.]

Not to mention that nuclear energy was developed as an afterthought to developing nuclear weapons. Focusing on it directly has allowed countries like Japan and France to make leaps ahead in nuclear energy.

And just so we're clear, the Japan accident was not caused by the earthquake nor the tsunami. They definitely lent a hand but it was the lack of power for the water pumps that is the real culprit here.

Focusing on conversion tech allowing us to take nuclear waste and essentially recycle it into usable fuel again is the future of nuclear energy if we'll allow it to be developed and not hide in the sand again.

Solar and Wind are not efficient enough (yet) to be a viable alternative for the amount of power production that nuclear provides.

Wind's biggest hurdle is that there are only three spots on the planet that give the most bang for the buck: The North Sea, Northern CO/Southern WY, and Mongolia. There are many spots that will eventually become profitable but require years of constant generation to get to that point. Eastern Montana is one of those places (I was looking into investing in the technology and building there), but the turbines themselves are still prohibitively expensive to build (lots of fossil fuels burned/used to manufacture), transport(half the loads are wide loads requiring specialized permits/drivers), and maintain (anyone who maintains the turbines once in place get paid very high fees doe to the height off the ground where their job takes them). All of this is the result of my researching the tech because I wanted to invest. Not as happy and convenient as pseudo-scientific talking points, but still.

Solar's biggest issue is one of efficiency. Solar in practical use tops out at around 21% efficiency. Meaning for every 100 kw the solar cell takes in it generates 21 kw. That sort of efficiency makes it impossible for solar to produce the same electricity with the same footprint as nuclear or fossil fuel plants. There is talk of a theoretical solar cell tech that is close to 80% efficient, but no practical models have been constructed. If that sort of solar tech were to become widely available, we could get rid of the majority of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, but we're not there yet.

[The Angel Raliel]

funnily enough it is relatively easy to build power stations that use  our waste but for some reason everyone sees them as bad even though they are less polluting than fossil fuel generators and actively get rid of the millions of tonnes of trash we so wastefully chuck into landfills at the moment

[CeeGBee]

Solar and Wind are not efficient enough (yet) to be a viable alternative for the amount of power production that nuclear provides.

Wind's biggest hurdle is that there are only three spots on the planet that give the most bang for the buck: The North Sea, Northern CO/Southern WY, and Mongolia. There are many spots that will eventually become profitable but require years of constant generation to get to that point. Eastern Montana is one of those places (I was looking into investing in the technology and building there), but the turbines themselves are still prohibitively expensive to build (lots of fossil fuels burned/used to manufacture), transport(half the loads are wide loads requiring specialized permits/drivers), and maintain (anyone who maintains the turbines once in place get paid very high fees doe to the height off the ground where their job takes them). All of this is the result of my researching the tech because I wanted to invest. Not as happy and convenient as pseudo-scientific talking points, but still.

Solar's biggest issue is one of efficiency. Solar in practical use tops out at around 21% efficiency. Meaning for every 100 kw the solar cell takes in it generates 21 kw. That sort of efficiency makes it impossible for solar to produce the same electricity with the same footprint as nuclear or fossil fuel plants. There is talk of a theoretical solar cell tech that is close to 80% efficient, but no practical models have been constructed. If that sort of solar tech were to become widely available, we could get rid of the majority of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, but we're not there yet.

True, but also largely distortion spread by the nice people who want to make sure you & I have
to keep paying them for power each month.  Very simple, small, literally 'bolt-on', wind-driven
generating units are available today that can, without grossly disfiguring your home, put a significant
dent in your monthly electric bill.  Likewise, rooftop solar cells are extremely cost-effective in most
of the United States...  and, like all this other stuff, these devices are getting cheaper, more efficient,
and easier to make every year.

I hate to sound like some paranoid tree-hugging hippie, but do you really believe for a second that the
oil companies, the coal companies (like the one that just convinced my state legislature to prohibit the
testing of streams near coal mining operations for runoff toxins), and the electric utilities themselves
aren't doing everything they can to keep people from adopting these technologies?

[N.U.]

Are you kidding? I guarantee they are doing everything to keep folks on the fossil fuel teat. The voters of Colorado had to force Excel energy via voter mandate (80% for) to produce a minimum of 10% of their power from renewable resources, even with all the warning from Excel that our electric bills would go up by 20%. Guess what? They didn't go up at all. In my state, personal solar requires about a $25,000 outlay to start with, just so your power storage is what is considered "safe", even if you end up feeding the grid (which is what 99 % of people who have some sort of solar build). Basically that means you are required pay for something you don't need if the power company is going to pay you back for the power you generate. Pretty crappy that they end up holding all the cards in this arrangement.

It is my personal belief that the future of US energy policy must be a decentralized model with households everywhere generating clean power through various means (Solar/wind/tidal/water wheel) to reduce the need to draw form the large polluting energy producers. I even have my own condo HOA looking to get solar panels placed on all the roofs to reduce the common area power consumption to almost 0.

[Agonistes]

I hate to sound like some paranoid tree-hugging hippie, but do you really believe for a second that the
oil companies, the coal companies (like the one that just convinced my state legislature to prohibit the
testing of streams near coal mining operations for runoff toxins), and the electric utilities themselves
aren't doing everything they can to keep people from adopting these technologies?

of course they don't want anyone making money off what they are doing, no matter how clean or efficient it might be.  the auto industry has already proven that fact.  remember the fuel-efficient carburetor?  the one that got a hundred miles to the gallon or whatever?  no you don't, because when a guy in florida invented it, chrystler bought it for a sweaty wad of cash, tossed it in a vault, and told the guy he could never make another one, on pain of getting sued all the way through next century.

this, of course, is one of the main reasons for governmental overhaul.  the fact that these guys are working with our politicians basically contributes towards making our politicians criminals.  not that they aren't already criminals, but we're not watching them closely enough.  politics should not mean privacy; in fact quite the opposite.

this is basically what i mean by demand.  these guys couldn't get away with this kind of thing if consumers decided not to let them.  we actually, as consumers, have the power to take their business away, period, without striking a blow...if we could stand a few days without power, to show them we didn't need them.  they couldn't keep selling fossil fuel cars if we didn't keep buying them right up and leasing them.  fixing things is going to be a group effort, unless we just keep on as we are and allow everything to grind to a halt before we realize it's time to give up immediate gratification for smarter, more efficient fuel.

we're probably moving soon, and my first order of business is to power my shed without electricity.  oh by the way--did i mention the (mostly hydro) power company around here is an illegal monopoly?

[N.U.]

it is not illegal. It is a sanctioned public/private partnership, which is how utility companies avoid anti-trust violations.

[Agonistes]

it is not illegal. It is a sanctioned public/private partnership, which is how utility companies avoid anti-trust violations.

in other words, it's still completely illegal, except they have a note from their mom.

[N.U.]

Even better. They got a note from the federal government that says "yes, this would normally be a violation except we say it isn't"

[Agonistes]

Even better. They got a note from the federal government that says "yes, this would normally be a violation except we say it isn't"

i want the federal government to be my mom.  i've wanted goddamn diplomatic immunity all my life.  not so i can kill anyone or anything.  i just want to park wherever i want.