Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

soupslam1

Clean Energy

Recommended Posts

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 9:18 PM, mugtang said:

Here’s his recent piece discussing why renewables can’t save the planet. 

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ 

Interesting that opinion piece did not contain a single mention of disposing of nuclear waste from power plants.  It did, however, seem to support the idea that unless wind turbines had no ecological impact whatsoever they were not an acceptable alternative to nuclear power.

Like so many people with a political agenda, the author refused to discuss the melding of fossil fuels and wind and solar energy sources.  

And make no mistake about it: quillette does have a clear political agenda.  The founders have clearly stated their intent to provide a libertarian platform.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sandiegopete said:

Interesting that opinion piece did not contain a single mention of disposing of nuclear waste from power plants.  It did, however, seem to support the idea that unless wind turbines had no ecological impact whatsoever they were not an acceptable alternative to nuclear power.

Like so many people with a political agenda, the author refused to discuss the melding of fossil fuels and wind and solar energy sources.  

And make no mistake about it: quillette does have a clear political agenda.  The founders have clearly stated their intent to provide a libertarian platform.  

 

It would take thousands if not millions of those wind spinners to equal one nuclear power plant, but who’s counting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sandiegopete said:

Interesting that opinion piece did not contain a single mention of disposing of nuclear waste from power plants.  It did, however, seem to support the idea that unless wind turbines had no ecological impact whatsoever they were not an acceptable alternative to nuclear power.

Like so many people with a political agenda, the author refused to discuss the melding of fossil fuels and wind and solar energy sources.  

And make no mistake about it: quillette does have a clear political agenda.  The founders have clearly stated their intent to provide a libertarian platform.  

 

You make a good point about the waste. But the author links several pieces about the links between renewable energy and fossil fuel industry.  Here for example https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas

And how is nuclear energy a libertarian agenda?  If the goal is to stop carbon emissions isn’t nuclear our best option since we know how to do it and can do it immediately?

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mugtang said:

You make a good point about the waste. But the author links several pieces about the links between renewable energy and fossil fuel industry.  Here for example https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas

And how is nuclear energy a libertarian agenda?  If the goal is to stop carbon emissions isn’t nuclear our best option since we know how to do it and can do it immediately?

Have you watched Chernobyl lately?

That disaster was responsible for making hundreds of square miles totally uninhabitable for thousands of years, and killing tens of thousands of people.

That's one accident.

What else don't we know about nuclear power safety?  I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but it's FAR from a "clean" energy source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Orange said:

Have you watched Chernobyl lately?

That disaster was responsible for making hundreds of square miles totally uninhabitable for thousands of years, and killing tens of thousands of people.

That's one accident.

What else don't we know about nuclear power safety?  I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but it's FAR from a "clean" energy source.

Hey, the 1980’s called and want their nuclear technology back. 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Hey, the 1980’s called and want their nuclear technology back. 

2011's Fukushima meltdown killed dozens (directly, anyway) and has rendered an entire town radioactive.

Got anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Orange said:

Have you watched Chernobyl lately?

That disaster was responsible for making hundreds of square miles totally uninhabitable for thousands of years, and killing tens of thousands of people.

That's one accident.

What else don't we know about nuclear power safety?  I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but it's FAR from a "clean" energy source.

 

Just now, Orange said:

2011's Fukushima meltdown killed dozens (directly, anyway) and has rendered an entire town radioactive.

Got anything else?

I’ve been watching Chernobyl on HBO and it’s a very good show.  

I think Chernobyl soured a lot of people on nuclear energy.  The disaster was magnified by a faulty reactor design, incompetent response, coverup, etc etc.

The Fukushima disaster was really a “perfect storm”.  I think a lack of imagination left them I’ll prepared to deal with a meltdown due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.  

Even with those two disasters I believe nuclear is still our best option to quickly reduce our carbon emissions.  The French get 75% of their power from nuclear plants and I think it’s a model we could follow.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mugtang said:

 

I’ve been watching Chernobyl on HBO and it’s a very good show.  

I think Chernobyl soured a lot of people on nuclear energy.  The disaster was magnified by a faulty reactor design, incompetent response, coverup, etc etc.

The Fukushima disaster was really a “perfect storm”.  I think a lack of imagination left them I’ll prepared to deal with a meltdown due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.  

Even with those two disasters I believe nuclear is still our best option to quickly reduce our carbon emissions.  The French get 75% of their power from nuclear plants and I think it’s a model we could follow.  

Sacre' bleu! Follow the French? Never!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2019 at 1:09 PM, Lester_in_reno said:

was safe here too!

Fukushima_Pacific_plumb.jpg

 

Until at least 2026 radioactive plume will continue to flow across ...

Nuclear News Net
Until at least 2026 radioactive plume will continue to flow across Pacific.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution senior scientist Ken Buesseler, Jan. 19, 2014: No US government agency currently tests radiation levels in the Pacific Ocean [...] “I don’t expect the radiation levels to be high but we can’t dismiss the concerns that the public has.....Weeks after the March 2011 Fukushima Plant disaster occurred a large plume of radioactive air swept across the Pacific Ocean and over California [...] a second plume is headed towards California, this one is in the water and has taken almost three years to make it across the Pacific Ocean. “The effects of Fukushima will be increasing as the front edge of a large water plume coming from the nuclear plant will reach California soon and increase over the years. [...] [Department of Energy, NOAA, FDA, and EPA] all said that it’s not their responsibility to test the Pacific Ocean for radiation. This issue is falling between the cracks of government responsibility. It’s a health and safety issue here.”

 

 

But what about the results of frac/extract of fossil fuels, and their subsequent use?  Those negative effects are happening now.  BLM has millions of acres of unwanted land.  A site selection and containment area could be done with care of people, water tables and wildlife.  Dismissing nuclear as a complement to our energy production seems counterintuitive to curbing emissions and finding viable solutions to steady production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2019 at 2:57 PM, sandiegopete said:

Interesting that opinion piece did not contain a single mention of disposing of nuclear waste from power plants.  It did, however, seem to support the idea that unless wind turbines had no ecological impact whatsoever they were not an acceptable alternative to nuclear power.

Like so many people with a political agenda, the author refused to discuss the melding of fossil fuels and wind and solar energy sources.  

And make no mistake about it: quillette does have a clear political agenda.  The founders have clearly stated their intent to provide a libertarian platform.  

 

How is nuclear advocacy a libertarian position? From what I understand, the nature of nuclear would require significant government investment and continued involvement in power generation. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

 

I’ve been watching Chernobyl on HBO and it’s a very good show.  

I think Chernobyl soured a lot of people on nuclear energy.  The disaster was magnified by a faulty reactor design, incompetent response, coverup, etc etc.

The Fukushima disaster was really a “perfect storm”.  I think a lack of imagination left them I’ll prepared to deal with a meltdown due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.  

Even with those two disasters I believe nuclear is still our best option to quickly reduce our carbon emissions.  The French get 75% of their power from nuclear plants and I think it’s a model we could follow.  

Earth is an unstable planet.  Reactors exist on fault lines all over the globe.

Again, I'm not saying to ignore nuclear, but it is not the silver bullet yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orange said:

Earth is an unstable planet.  Reactors exist on fault lines all over the globe.

Again, I'm not saying to ignore nuclear, but it is not the silver bullet yet.

If climate change is an immediate, existential threat, and the priority is to drastically reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible, then it is the closest thing there is to one. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mugtang said:

 

I’ve been watching Chernobyl on HBO and it’s a very good show.  

I think Chernobyl soured a lot of people on nuclear energy.  The disaster was magnified by a faulty reactor design, incompetent response, coverup, etc etc.

The Fukushima disaster was really a “perfect storm”.  I think a lack of imagination left them I’ll prepared to deal with a meltdown due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.  

Even with those two disasters I believe nuclear is still our best option to quickly reduce our carbon emissions.  The French get 75% of their power from nuclear plants and I think it’s a model we could follow.  

One of the most interesting factors that contributed to the Fukushima disaster that you don't hear about is how Japanese culture itself made the disaster worse.  There were tons of protective systems on the system that weren't operated quickly enough or just ignored completely due to the workers not wanting to admit that there was something wrong.  This was due to the concept of honor and face that permeates through Japanese culture.  In my work as a Navy Nuclear Engineer, a lot of people I work with were over there working on the George Washington when then quake happened and the carrier was used to provide assistance.  Many of our personnel were on site immediately after to evaluate the problem, and they found that a lot of these protective measures weren't put into action because people didn't want to have to deal with the shame of having to admit that there was a problem. Since the accident, the Japanese nuclear authority has been working to address the issue to make sure that that kind of stuff doesn't happen again.  It has been a huge wake up call for them.

"BYU is like a 4-year-long church dance with 20,000 chaperones all waiting for you to forget to shave one morning so they can throw you out." -GeoAg

l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Naggsty Butler said:

One of the most interesting factors that contributed to the Fukushima disaster that you don't hear about is how Japanese culture itself made the disaster worse.  There were tons of protective systems on the system that weren't operated quickly enough or just ignored completely due to the workers not wanting to admit that there was something wrong.  This was due to the concept of honor and face that permeates through Japanese culture.  In my work as a Navy Nuclear Engineer, a lot of people I work with were over there working on the George Washington when then quake happened and the carrier was used to provide assistance.  Many of our personnel were on site immediately after to evaluate the problem, and they found that a lot of these protective measures weren't put into action because people didn't want to have to deal with the shame of having to admit that there was a problem. Since the accident, the Japanese nuclear authority has been working to address the issue to make sure that that kind of stuff doesn't happen again.  It has been a huge wake up call for them.

So the disaster was preventable for the most part....

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange said:

2011's Fukushima meltdown killed dozens (directly, anyway) and has rendered an entire town radioactive.

Got anything else?

The meltdown killed exactly 0 people.  The radioactivity in Fukushima is less than that of Denver.  There are already people that have moved back to Fukushima. 

"BYU is like a 4-year-long church dance with 20,000 chaperones all waiting for you to forget to shave one morning so they can throw you out." -GeoAg

l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Nuclear Power is that people lack the fundamental understanding of how radiation works.  There is no radioactive glowing sludge that you see on The Simpsons and everything else that tries to make Nuclear Power scary. Radiation is energy that is emitted from a radioactive source. Radioactive particles are ions (atoms with a charge) that, when they come in contact with other atoms that are sensitive to charge, can interact and cause a reaction.  Radiation is dangerous due to the fact that when a radioactive particle comes in contact with tissue, it can knock an atom out of place or break a piece of DNA.  Fortunately, the human body can repair itself relatively quickly, and will not be damaged very long.  But when there is a lot of radiation, there can be so much damage that the body can't keep up with the repair and cancerous tumors replace healthy cells. There are 3 types of radiation related to nuclear power: Gamma, Beta, and Alpha.  Alpha, which is a Helium atom with a +2 charge, is the most dangerous since it has such a strong charge and can cause more reactions from otherwise stable atoms. Beta is a high energy, free electron with either a -1 or +1 charge.  While not as reactive as the Alpha particle, it can still be dangerous if there is enough of it.  Finally, there is Gamma, which is a high energy electromagnetic wave.  It is the least dangerous.  While alpha is the most dangerous, it is also the easiest to shield, due to it reacting so easily with any material.  It can be shielded by skin, paper, or even a few inches of air. Beta is has a stronger penetrative ability, but can still be shielded with thing metal or wood.  Gamma, since it is much less reactive, is likewise much more difficult to shield.  It is generally shielded with layers of lead or water.  For it to be dangerous, though, there needs to be a lot of it.  Since Alpha and Beta can both be shielded by skin or paper, they are really only dangerous when they become ingested.  Once inside the body, they can interact more easily with cells. Gamma on the other hand, needs to be actively shielded.  Once it is properly shielded, it really isn't much of a threat at all.  I work with in 30 ft of an operating reactor and receive less radiation in a year than people living in Denver do.  We know how to deal with radiation, and we do it well.  The Navy has been operating nuclear reactors for nearly 70 years and hasn't had a single major accident.  Zero Fatalities.  Zero lost reactors.  And every single one of these reactors are being operated by some kid who enlisted out of high school.  We know how to do this, but people are just too scared to give it a shot.

"BYU is like a 4-year-long church dance with 20,000 chaperones all waiting for you to forget to shave one morning so they can throw you out." -GeoAg

l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Naggsty Butler said:

The meltdown killed exactly 0 people.  The radioactivity in Fukushima is less than that of Denver.  There are already people that have moved back to Fukushima. 

OK so why don't you move there?
Real estate is probably REALLY cheap.

Oh and it is so  brave of you to leave THIS poison for many generations after you ARE LONG FORGOTTEN

To deal with and administer.

think about that!

But you're a big tough-guy on the internet right?

cerified_Subarus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lester_in_reno said:

OK so why don't you move there?
Real estate is probably REALLY cheap.

Oh and it is so  how brave of you to leave THIS poison for many generations after you ARE LONG FORGOTTEN

To deal with and administer.

think about that!

But you're a big tough-guy on the internet right?

I'd gladly move there.  Lots of cheap property.  You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to THIS poison, a vague boogeyman that people like you refuse to learn about and perpetuate myths about.  Thomas Edison is rightly famous for helping make electricity a household commodity, but in his fight with Telsa over DC vs AC, he made some wildly absurd claims about AC to try and scare people into not using it, such as using an AC circuit to electrocute an elephant, something you can do with DC as well.  People are doing the same thing with Nuclear power.  They want everyone to be scared of it because like electricity, it can be misused and hurt people as a result.  But we have learned how to make electricity safely, and we can do the same thing with nuclear power.

And if informing ignorant people like you about something as basic that 19 year old Navy enlisted kids are trained on makes me an internet tough guy, then I gladly wear that label.  I guess that makes you dumber than an 19 year old kid.

"BYU is like a 4-year-long church dance with 20,000 chaperones all waiting for you to forget to shave one morning so they can throw you out." -GeoAg

l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Naggsty Butler said:

I'd gladly move there.  Lots of cheap property.  You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to THIS poison, a vague boogeyman that people like you refuse to learn about and perpetuate myths about.  Thomas Edison is rightly famous for helping make electricity a household commodity, but in his fight with Telsa over DC vs AC, he made some wildly absurd claims about AC to try and scare people into not using it, such as using an AC circuit to electrocute an elephant, something you can do with DC as well.  People are doing the same thing with Nuclear power.  They want everyone to be scared of it because like electricity, it can be misused and hurt people as a result.  But we have learned how to make electricity safely, and we can do the same thing with nuclear power.

And if informing ignorant people like you about something as basic that 19 year old Navy enlisted kids are trained on makes me an internet tough guy, then I gladly wear that label.  I guess that makes you dumber than an 19 year old kid.

LMFAO !!

Unreal.

So no information on where the poison waste goes ??

cerified_Subarus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...