Making mountains out of meltdowns (in Japan)
-
Since retirement, I occasionally watch court TV. Whenever the party the Judge is going to rule against begins their nervous smiles, the Judge will always tell them to wipe the smile off their faces, then bring down the gavel down against them. No nuclear power in Hawaii yet (unless you count the Navy berth in Pearl Harbor), but all of our power plants (at least on the island of Oahu) are next to the ocean, or water connected and close by the ocean. If a Tsunami hits us, those that are not inundated will be without power for a long while.
Mean while more bad news for Japan.
@unknownuser said:
Radioactive strontium detected in seabed
Radioactive strontium has been detected for the first time on the seabed near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Tokyo Electric Power Company says it found strontium-89 and -90 in the seabed soil. The company conducted a survey on June 2nd about 3 kilometers off the coast at 2 locations, some 20 kilometers north and south of the nuclear complex.
The substances pose a serious health risk because they can accumulate in the bones if inhaled, which could cause cancer.
Up to 44 becquerels per kilogram of strontium-90 were detected, which has a half-life of 29 years.
The substances had been detected before in soil on land and in seawater following the nuclear accident in March.
A member of the government's Nuclear Safety Commission, Shigeharu Kato, says more examination should be carried out to find out if or how the substances can accumulate in marine life.
The fishery ministry conducted separate surveys. It did not find radioactive strontium in fish and seafood samples taken off the coast of Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures. Both are located south of the Fukushima plant.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 08:54 +0900 (JST)
-
@unknownuser said:
When we installed the panels on our house roof I had the expectation that we could allow them to sit there without a worry or care and to generate electricity during daylight hours for the next twenty-five years when the guarantee runs out. That they ought to be exposed to unshaded sunlight was obvious, but my early discovery that in order to achieve maximum output they need also to be rinsed periodically was an early lesson in the maintenance of solar panels. I have been more recently surprised that these two points are not fully appreciated by everyone, not even some "experts."
A really interesting report from this guy in SolCal who thought PV cells on his roof was "a great idea"
-
You have a new provocative avatar
-
Looks like someone shot tomcat
-
@unknownuser said:
You have a new provocative avatar
Yes, however it's no more provocative than this image below is it...?
Towards the end of the last century. my family drove around English roads and up and down motorways in our cars, with an English version of this sticker in the back window. I remember it was really cool to have this sticker- even more cool if you had the one that was in German! "Atomkraft? Nein Danke!". How provocative was that?! Britain was still very mistrusting of Germany in the 60's and 70's, and this sticker represented so much more than just being anti-nuclear. It represented moving forward. Britain united with the rest of Europe. A new age. That was my interpretation of it in those days anyway. I was only a boy.
We made such a fuss over nuclear in the 1960's and 1970's. A nuclear scientist, to the intellectual middle classes was someone to have deep mistrust in. We were fed terrible images of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all driven by a deep fear of the cold war- which was at its peak. My sister would for years have nuclear 'nightmares' and would often cry herself to sleep, because largely my parents were so prominent in the British anti-nuclear movement and would fill her head with propaganda. We actually almost had an all out nuclear war in 1979- but it wasn't a republican who was going to press that big strike button, it was sweet old democratic President Carter.
In the 1980's we demonstrated about the nuclear train. (Where did that go or end?). The nuclear train even crashed once. We're still here. There were mass demonstrations in Germany, where the green movement was strong. I was a member of the British green movement in the early 1980's. I was a young fallible 16 year old, who listened too much to others rather than making my own opinions. I became highly irritated with the green party, partially because they were doing there best to "kick out the anarchists" (but mainly because at heart, they were the vacuous upper middle-class). The greens found anarchists most distasteful, because essentially anarchists were marxists. Marxism didn't bode well with middle class green ideals. Then in about 1982/3 I was sitting outside a pub during local elections, when this guy walks up to me donning a badge of a green flower with an A in the middle of it. "I'm a green anarchist" he said. It was obvious that the greens had found kudos by posing as anarchists. And those who thought they were anarchists, but weren't and were actually middle class environmentalist posers, found a way to make themselves more acceptable to the dying left, the dregs of socialism, who were slowly watching the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was a burgeoning green 'new age' growing, and those who didn't carry on with their Marxist roots (like myself), joined this new age movement. Suddenly the accolade of being labeled an "anarchist", a 'free thinker' and especially to pose as a 'green anarchist' was just too tempting, too elitist to ignore.
-
So "reactive" by anti-fusion
-
-
@unknownuser said:
Looks like someone shot tomcat
Don't worry Rich, he'll return in some shape or another...soon!
-
I should point out that my avatar comes from this blog;
It's a Swedish site, but is run by many nuclear physicists from around the world, and is worth a visit as a believer or not.
-
@unknownuser said:
Seems your forum is a small forum by the number of members
It's not 'my' forum.
...and seeing the amount of hysteria around over nuclear (your silly scaremongering comments don't exactly help either do they?
), what do you honestly expect? -
It was just a word play between a personal history and a physical description
Seems your forum is a small forum by the number of members
and this video on the their blog a very optimistic one
[flash=560,349:1p1x3ycd]http://www.youtube.com/v/ITwuq4MFQlY?version=3[/flash:1p1x3ycd]
-
@unknownuser said:
It was
and this video on the their blog a very optimistic one
Where are all the dead bodies? Have they hidden them? Apparently you get more carcinogens in your lungs everyday by frying sausages! (another myth perhaps?)
It's not the best of sites/blogs anyway. It's far too "too many people on the planet" malthusian nonsense for my liking. I just used their logo for my avatar.
Spiked.org is a far better, more balanced read.
-
Sorry I don't want take these so beautifull white workclothes for restore these inconsequential energy!
Non merci -
@tfdesign said:
@unknownuser said:
When we installed the panels on our house roof I had the expectation that we could allow them to sit there without a worry or care and to generate electricity during daylight hours for the next twenty-five years when the guarantee runs out. That they ought to be exposed to unshaded sunlight was obvious, but my early discovery that in order to achieve maximum output they need also to be rinsed periodically was an early lesson in the maintenance of solar panels. I have been more recently surprised that these two points are not fully appreciated by everyone, not even some "experts."
A really interesting report from this guy in SolCal who thought PV cells on his roof was "a great idea"
Wow, the gentleman was surprised he needed to rinse his solar panels. I suppose that when he bought a new car he would not have to wash it either.
-
I read the report and it gets even funnier. He was afraid to remove grasshoppers and repair his inverter connection because it carried 350 volts DC.
There used to be a Polish joke in the pre PC days about the Poles sending an astronaut to the Sun. When people complained that the astronauts would be fried by the heat a government official explained they would travel by night.
How many volts will be flowing on a moonless night when working by flashlight? I wonder if this professor teaches logic at Cal State University Dominguez Hills?
-
err...run that past me again....? "Wash his car"?
what an absurd analogy! Where's the connection? -
@roger said:
I read the report and it gets even funnier. He was afraid to remove grasshoppers and repair his inverter connection because it carried 350 volts DC.
It's not the voltage that kills you. Anyway, you should know this? A man who is so good with his engineering maths?
-
@tfdesign said:
err...run that past me again....? "Wash his car"?
what an absurd analogy! Where's the connection?Hmmmm. The analogy does not seem the least bit absurd to me. If the man has driven his car for years, he should have noticed the need to clean his windshield once or twice a week so he can see through the glass. Now he installs glass solar panels on the roof and is surprised by the need to rinse them. I am assuming he is an idiot. In fact, the photo of his wife climbing a ladder to hose them has me convinced. He should have dedicated sprayers.
-
@roger said:
All power is nuclear if you trace it back to its source. I just don't see the advantage of centralized power generation, when solar, wind and tidal are so abundant.
Solar is not expensive, it is just over-priced while we go through the dark ages of nuclear-based petroleum.It's only inexpensive if you can afford it. Those on high incomes, or with lots of savings can, perhaps those who've vested in property too? Many however, can't. And only those who are loaded would be happy to invest the £12,000 or so to have the thing installed on their roof! And for what? 4kW of power at best- when it's sunny that is (not at night- and less…….)
@roger said:
Have you ever heard the argument about overcast days and it being dark at night as an argument against solar.
Yes, and it's a sound as well as valid argument. Where do you store nightime electricity? 'Eco-batteries' do exist, but in order to power hospitals and city centres, you need an awful lot of them, all which still come as a great cost to the environment. Batteries also need replacing, even if they are later recycled for less energy intensive use.
@roger said:
What is petroleum other than decayed plant material. Those plants were grown by solar energy and that energy was stored in the oil. And that solar energy came from our primary nuclear generating station which is the sun. So oil is a battery made of nuclear/solar generated biomass.
That's a very strange way of looking at it. Only someone from an alternative energy background would come up with an argument like that! This argument would be fine if your heart would beat at the speed of light and 1 year would equal one second. Then we could perhaps reap the benefits of plants and animals that have decayed over millions of years. But life, as you know doesn't travel at that pace, and we need to be realistic, and certainly not backward thinking. Personally I'd rather have a controlled nuclear reaction that will produce enough heat to power my stove to cook my morning bacon, eggs, brew my tea and heat my shower, and everybody else's breakfast and shower down the remainder of my avenue, not to mention the rest of the city!
@roger said:
In ten years we will go from 12 to 20 percent solar efficiency to near 80 percent efficiency. We have the knowledge and basic technology and the time lag is just a function of going through the phase of engineering refinement.
But scientists were saying this 40 years ago! The technology is still only about 20% efficient. Where is this 'wonder technology'? I grew up on a steady diet of Practical Electronics, Elektor and Electronics Today International. I read them religiously! Sure, when PV technology reaches 80+%, I'll be more interested, but until then, what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Freeze? Take a step back into the dark ages? No thanks!
@roger said:
The length of the lag will be moderated by the roadblocks raised by political conservatism. However, conservatism will fall harder than the Berlin wall as the floodgates of pent up energy demand and the rising price of oil collide. May not happen in my life time, but it could also happen in less than 10 years.
The price of oil hasn't risen because of the lack of oil. The price of oil is rising because of price speculation, just like the rise in the value of property, and more recently, food. Oil sits in tankers in the docks and is drip fed to us until the demand becomes so great, the price has to rise, and rise further. Another barrel is released and the price goes up again.
As for Conservatism? I consider the current shift to environmentalism 'the new conservatism'. Conservatism is about wanting to regress, not progress. If going forward means a short but serious impact on the environment, because essentially I put humanity before the environment, this would be a good thing. We've done this before. Why not do it again? Essentially conservatism doesn't really exist any more. There is only progression or regression (however you see it; making furniture from plastic bottles, or doing it properly by manufacturing products on a large scale for the use of everyone, so we don't need to 'roll our own', freeing up more time to spend with our children and families). Putting solar panels on top of one's house is not only elitist (a bit like wearing the Burqa), it's also regressive, because essentially it is just another excuse for energy companies not to invest in new technology, to build better and safer plants using technology discovered during 'the dark ages' of nuclear development, and to pass any profits, reaped from government subsidy handouts to be shared with its shareholders. Putting money before humanity is just plain wrong, and environmentalism plays right into the arms of this strategy.
This article from Spiked.org is written by Professor Colin McInnes of Strathclyde University who has written imo, a very convincing argument;
@unknownuser said:
While growing energy use and global trade have led to rapidly improving standards of living across much of the planet, some now advocate a return to localism as the means of production. For example, growing more of our own food in gardens, generating our own energy through roof-top wind turbines and crafting our own material goods are seen as the solution to a range of contemporary economic and environmental problems. Unfortunately, the result would be a socially regressive slide back towards subsistence and poverty. Subsistence, doing everything for oneself, is the very definition of poverty.
Regression to local modes of production is nothing new. During the Great Leap Forward in late-1950s China, individuals were required to produce steel in small community furnaces. The result was useless, poor-quality steel and a massive misallocation of economic resources. Even when failure was accepted by Mao himself, the scheme continued in order to raise awareness of national need.
The UK energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, harks back to such self-sufficiency when he invites us to return to localism in energy production. Big energy companies are the enemy, while home generation will apparently allow us to escape their tyranny. The idea of local energy production is superficially appealing. Like Mao’s backyard furnaces, it is widely seen as a means of raising awareness by connecting us personally to the means of production. While Huhne’s own department recognises that local energy production makes little economic sense, it notes that it can ‘empower individuals’ and be ‘used as a lever for behavioural change’. Some may well feel empowered, but the rest of us will be poorer for it.
For example, small domestic roof-mounted wind turbines at present enjoy a so-called ‘feed-in tariff’ of 34.5 pence per unit of electricity produced, guaranteed and index-linked against inflation for 25 years. However, the average spot-price for electricity production in 2009 was 3.8 pence per unit (for base load), so aspiring wind-turbine owners can in principle sell their spare energy to the rest of us for up to 10 times what it is actually worth. Even as a means of displacing carbon from energy production, this is as outrageously expensive as it is ineffective.
Read the remainder of the article here. It's a well written article, and worth reading
-
@roger said:
@tfdesign said:
err...run that past me again....? "Wash his car"?
what an absurd analogy! Where's the connection?Hmmmm. The analogy does not seem the least bit absurd to me. If the man has driven his car for years, he should have noticed the need to clean his windshield once or twice a week so he can see through the glass. Now he installs glass solar panels on the roof and is surprised by the need to rinse them. I am assuming he is an idiot. In fact, the photo of his wife climbing a ladder to hose them has me convinced. He should have dedicated sprayers.
Oh come on! You don't buy a car because you know it runs on solar power? Car's run on petrol. Some even run on electricity, but that electricity is not provided by the sun!? Why then should you be bothered to clean your car if you know perfectly well that cleaning it will do bog all to improve its performance?
Advertisement