Org Mobile Site
Thread: Uh-oh, Japan, this is bad
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
show me how you would balance the demand/supply equation
We must invade and conquer Algeria. Then we turn the coastal north into French départements and build a solar plant the size of Spain in its southern Sahara regions. show me how you would balance the demand/supply equation
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Before we all sign on to bury our reactors in concrete, you all should figure out what it takes on an economy of scale magnitude to keep your Prius charged up and your Ipad glowing.
Do some order of magnitude calculations on the generation/liberation of energy. Ask yourself... would you rather live with broken mountains & sooty skies (coal), oil slicks and sooty skies (oil), an area the size of Texas covered in solar panels to power just Dallas (solar)... or show me how you would balance the demand/supply equation, and what you would do with the waste.
Nuclear power does a great job at much energy for little integrated negative effect. The problem is that the negative effects are highly concentrated. I'm not saying that's the answer, but tiling 2/3 of our land mass with cadmium isn't either (solar) me-thinks.
I've always though people were far, far, far, more scared of nuclear power then they should be. Many posts here (and the attitude that underlies it) are evidence enough of that. The problem with renewable energy sources is that they can't practically replace any of the fossil or nuclear energy generation. The wind and the waves will never be able to match the sundering of uranium for sheer Mega Wattage.Before we all sign on to bury our reactors in concrete, you all should figure out what it takes on an economy of scale magnitude to keep your Prius charged up and your Ipad glowing.
Do some order of magnitude calculations on the generation/liberation of energy. Ask yourself... would you rather live with broken mountains & sooty skies (coal), oil slicks and sooty skies (oil), an area the size of Texas covered in solar panels to power just Dallas (solar)... or show me how you would balance the demand/supply equation, and what you would do with the waste.
Nuclear power does a great job at much energy for little integrated negative effect. The problem is that the negative effects are highly concentrated. I'm not saying that's the answer, but tiling 2/3 of our land mass with cadmium isn't either (solar) me-thinks.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Nuclear Power is a false dawn, it won't solve out energy problems, or save the environment, it will just further stall the introduction of sustainable power, and it can cause serious and irreperable damage if there is an accident.
Indeed, this is why we need to get those Fusion reactors up and running.Nuclear Power is a false dawn, it won't solve out energy problems, or save the environment, it will just further stall the introduction of sustainable power, and it can cause serious and irreperable damage if there is an accident.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Also the energy we use everyday is limited by its scarcest resource/material, renewable energy is highly dependent on particular rare materials and is therefore limited by them.
There is enough fuel in Lake Guevara to power a the city of Las Vegas for a stupid amount (either billion or trillion years). There isn't much of an issue as it can simply just use sea water.Also the energy we use everyday is limited by its scarcest resource/material, renewable energy is highly dependent on particular rare materials and is therefore limited by them.
[Yes, I have been a strong advocate of nuclear fusion for many years.]
The scramble for Fusion seems to be the way forward, CIT has demonstrated their ability to hold a fusion charge together (a major leap forward) with the use of high powered 'laser' technology. This still leaves us with a thirty-sixty year gap without any sort of fusion technology. Actually, Louis brings a good point forward, even if solar power were to be a 'next gen' source of energy the major suppliers would still be the same people we're trying to get away from.
Once the shock had worn off, what struck me is how many of the houses were made of wood. Seems like they were traditional wooden houses topped with tiles - not good in earthquakes, and presumably not for tsunamis either. I wonder if more solid structures would have made much of a difference? The town where the only building not washed away was the hospital (made presumably of concrete and or bricks) made me wonder.
Well in California it's perfectly fine to have a building made from wood. You just have to build with sheer in mind. And in deed the building codes in California require that any material used have an official sheer rating. And that the timber framed building be put together a certain way. I'm sure Kukri would be able to elaborate further. But against a Tsunami it wouldn't matter what you built out of, total mass it what matter then.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The Emperor is worried: http://www.wootly.com/2a1rj9nnwwo6
The Emperor should be. It's his job to worry about the Japanese nation.The Emperor is worried: http://www.wootly.com/2a1rj9nnwwo6
Originally Posted by lars573:
I've always though people were far, far, far, more scared of nuclear power then they should be. Many posts here (and the attitude that underlies it) are evidence enough of that. The problem with renewable energy sources is that they can't practically replace any of the fossil or nuclear energy generation. The wind and the waves will never be able to match the sundering of uranium for sheer Mega Wattage.
The problem with Nuclear is when it goes wrong - Coal-fired or other fired plants are much safer. The issue with those is waste products (which it should be possible to burn off with greater efficiency or some for of catalitic converter, I would have thought, and CO2. The CO2 itself is perfectly harmless, it just happens to be a "Green House Gas". I would have thought more energy would go into clean-burning and carbon offsetting, personally.I've always though people were far, far, far, more scared of nuclear power then they should be. Many posts here (and the attitude that underlies it) are evidence enough of that. The problem with renewable energy sources is that they can't practically replace any of the fossil or nuclear energy generation. The wind and the waves will never be able to match the sundering of uranium for sheer Mega Wattage.
*shrug*
Originally Posted by Father Maxi:
The scramble for Fusion seems to be the way forward, CIT has demonstrated their ability to hold a fusion charge together (a major leap forward) with the use of high powered 'laser' technology. This still leaves us with a thirty-sixty year gap without any sort of fusion technology. Actually, Louis brings a good point forward, even if solar power were to be a 'next gen' source of energy the major suppliers would still be the same people we're trying to get away from.
Like Spain, Australia, the USA and (southern) France?The scramble for Fusion seems to be the way forward, CIT has demonstrated their ability to hold a fusion charge together (a major leap forward) with the use of high powered 'laser' technology. This still leaves us with a thirty-sixty year gap without any sort of fusion technology. Actually, Louis brings a good point forward, even if solar power were to be a 'next gen' source of energy the major suppliers would still be the same people we're trying to get away from.
Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer:
Once the shock had worn off, what struck me is how many of the houses were made of wood. Seems like they were traditional wooden houses topped with tiles - not good in earthquakes, and presumably not for tsunamis either. I wonder if more solid structures would have made much of a difference? The town where the only building not washed away was the hospital (made presumably of concrete and or bricks) made me wonder.
Looking at the pictures to be honest it looked to me like a lot or most the buildings survived the quake but were demolished by the wave instead.Once the shock had worn off, what struck me is how many of the houses were made of wood. Seems like they were traditional wooden houses topped with tiles - not good in earthquakes, and presumably not for tsunamis either. I wonder if more solid structures would have made much of a difference? The town where the only building not washed away was the hospital (made presumably of concrete and or bricks) made me wonder.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The problem with Nuclear is when it goes wrong - Coal-fired or other fired plants are much safer. The issue with those is waste products (which it should be possible to burn off with greater efficiency or some for of catalitic converter, I would have thought, and CO2. The CO2 itself is perfectly harmless, it just happens to be a "Green House Gas". I would have thought more energy would go into clean-burning and carbon offsetting, personally.
*shrug*
The reason is that nuclear fuel isn't going to run out any time soon; all of the easily available coal, gas and oil are likely to be gone in a century.The problem with Nuclear is when it goes wrong - Coal-fired or other fired plants are much safer. The issue with those is waste products (which it should be possible to burn off with greater efficiency or some for of catalitic converter, I would have thought, and CO2. The CO2 itself is perfectly harmless, it just happens to be a "Green House Gas". I would have thought more energy would go into clean-burning and carbon offsetting, personally.
*shrug*
I have read somewhere -some other internet user's claim from a source I guess so linking to it would be meaningless- that there are 50 technicians already fatally dosed by radiation in that Fukushima facility, called Fukushima 50, sacrificing their lives to save the rest.
How true is that ? Could anybody confirm ?
How true is that ? Could anybody confirm ?
That news came out on CNN too.
I think we could solve the unemployment problem by having millions of labourers use those exercise bikes to produce energy for the upper class. It'll be good excercise for a lot of people too. The middle class and below should move to warmer regions for warmth. Reintroduce widespread horseback riding.
I think we could solve the unemployment problem by having millions of labourers use those exercise bikes to produce energy for the upper class. It'll be good excercise for a lot of people too. The middle class and below should move to warmer regions for warmth. Reintroduce widespread horseback riding.
BBC doesn't have this yet.
It does have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12766930
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608
Yeah.... worse than Three Mile Island.
It does have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12766930
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608
Yeah.... worse than Three Mile Island.
It's been said in the news here, some think they're heroes, one expert said their lives are "wasted"* and they should be evacuated immediately though because there is apparently not much they can do anymore(or that's what he thinks).
*not a quote, it's hard to translate from german
*not a quote, it's hard to translate from german
Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Chernobyl.html most bleak, naturally.
So, I hate to say I told you so in this case, but I think it's fair to say at this point they've probably lost it.
Everything I am reading says there is a rotating 180 man team.
So, I hate to say I told you so in this case, but I think it's fair to say at this point they've probably lost it.
Everything I am reading says there is a rotating 180 man team.
Ah, looks like they are not actually 50, but 50 per shift. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-disaster.html
Media hyp there, though 180 cancer victims is of course worse.
Media hyp there, though 180 cancer victims is of course worse.
Well, now I read that they have already flown over the plant with helicopters to drop tons of water onto the plant and have positioned water cannons as well to cool the reactors and spent fuel down, next up is a power line to a generator that they want to connect today to get the cooling systems up and running again.
Sounds like a very close call that could end either way.
Sounds like a very close call that could end either way.
Maybe we should be hoping for another tsunami, 'should easily cool it down. Allthough isnt the main fear that it will get to a point where pouring water will just make it worse; water turned to steam so fast that it explodes, etc?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Well, now I read that they have already flown over the plant with helicopters to drop tons of water onto the plant and have positioned water cannons as well to cool the reactors and spent fuel down, next up is a power line to a generator that they want to connect today to get the cooling systems up and running again.
Sounds like a very close call that could end either way.
They needed about 200 airdrops, 2 have been successful. Radiation has made the rest fail.Well, now I read that they have already flown over the plant with helicopters to drop tons of water onto the plant and have positioned water cannons as well to cool the reactors and spent fuel down, next up is a power line to a generator that they want to connect today to get the cooling systems up and running again.
Sounds like a very close call that could end either way.
Firetrucks are held back because of radiation.
The skeleton crew are as-we-speak trying to clear a road for the fire engines.
Might come to the point where people get more or less ordered to sacrifice their lives.
<- This just in Swedish media.
**** me.
I must say I have the deepest respect for the skeleton crew remaining.
I have donned a NBC suit myself, and let me tell you - it is not very pleasant. It weights down on you and the easiest task becomes a heavy burden. The goggles fogs up as you start to sweat and since the sweat has nowhere to go you will bath in it inside the suit within minutes.
Now add complete darkness and heavy radiation. Fires and hard labour.
That is seriously living hell.
If you believe in some God, pray. If not, let your thoughts go out to these heroes. And if you happen to have a chance to help - do not hesitate.
I have donned a NBC suit myself, and let me tell you - it is not very pleasant. It weights down on you and the easiest task becomes a heavy burden. The goggles fogs up as you start to sweat and since the sweat has nowhere to go you will bath in it inside the suit within minutes.
Now add complete darkness and heavy radiation. Fires and hard labour.
That is seriously living hell.
If you believe in some God, pray. If not, let your thoughts go out to these heroes. And if you happen to have a chance to help - do not hesitate.
Originally Posted by Shibumi:
Might come to the point where people get more or less ordered to sacrifice their lives.
I thought exactly that when I was reading BBC News this morning.Might come to the point where people get more or less ordered to sacrifice their lives.
It makes me so sad that some people may have to knowingly walk to their deaths. I don't have that kind of bravery.
An interesting contrast from those cable news shows I don't watch. MSNBC's pet lesbian does a pretty good job of explaining nuclear reactors for dummies:
Youtube Video
Contrast and compare with the crazy fellow on Fox using M&Ms:
Youtube Video
Youtube Video
Contrast and compare with the crazy fellow on Fox using M&Ms:
Youtube Video
Energy conservation and networking is the way forward.
A passive house can be heated just by turning on the telly, even if its freezing outside.
And no, electric cars and such do not pose an energy problem, as it will reduce the total ammount of energy required. The combustion engine in a car only utilizes around 15% of the energy in gas, the rest is simply wasted. A power plant, on the other hand, utilizes around 95% of the energy in that very same gas.
If we were to switch all cars to electric cars now, the energy savings would be a number bigger than what I can write.
A passive house can be heated just by turning on the telly, even if its freezing outside.
And no, electric cars and such do not pose an energy problem, as it will reduce the total ammount of energy required. The combustion engine in a car only utilizes around 15% of the energy in gas, the rest is simply wasted. A power plant, on the other hand, utilizes around 95% of the energy in that very same gas.
If we were to switch all cars to electric cars now, the energy savings would be a number bigger than what I can write.
But try getting North Americans to give up a go anywhere anytime vehicle. I think hybrids will be the better solution short term. And if/when electric car tech evolves to a point where it can be go anywhere anytime use them exclusively. I do agree about the rest, using less energy can be as good as switching to less polluting ways of producing said energy.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
If we were to switch all cars to electric cars now, the energy savings would be a number bigger than what I can write.
Surely a joke, with battery technology where it is right now. I believe there's a serious question as to whether or not there is enough lithium on the planet to accomplish your wish.If we were to switch all cars to electric cars now, the energy savings would be a number bigger than what I can write.
Also the cost to pay for the amount of fossil fuel we'd have to burn to create the neccissary electricity for those cars would make up for those savings, seeing as there's no way nuclear energy will ever be trusted again.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Surely a joke, with battery technology where it is right now. I believe there's a serious question as to whether or not there is enough lithium on the planet to accomplish your wish.
Not to mention the environmental damage from extracting all those minerals, and the toxic by-products.Surely a joke, with battery technology where it is right now. I believe there's a serious question as to whether or not there is enough lithium on the planet to accomplish your wish.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO